Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Preamble

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Gatwick Airport

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will hold a public inquiry into the British Airports Authority's application for a second terminal at Gatwick airport.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): Yes, Sir. The planning authorities have been told that this will be done.

Mr. Johnson Smith: As this application, if it were successful, could result in a fourfold increase in passenger traffic at Gatwick airport, will the Secretary of State ensure that the terms of reference of the inquiry are not confined to the effects on the local environment but will take into account the effects on the region as a whole, if not the nation? Will the inquiry take into account the wider social and economic effects, including the current review of the strategy of airports for the South-East?

Mr. Shore: I shall consider this matter carefully when I formally call it in, but there are certain procedures that have to be gone through before I shall be in a position to do that. As the hon. Gentleman knows—and I fully understand his interest in this question—it is my task to issue a rule 6 statement, and in that statement I shall identify the major matters of concern. It is open to the parties to discuss that rule 6 statement and to let me have their views on its circumference.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the Secretary of Etate ensure that the inquiry's outcome

and his reaction to it are not delayed in a way which would limit the capacity of the London airports below what will be required in the years to come?

Mr. Shore: I am, I think, proceeding with proper speed with this inquiry. As the hon. Gentleman undoubtedly knows, the inquiry into the fourth terminal at Heathrow is also proceeding, and obviously we must bear in mind the whole question of the timing of the provision of airport capacity against the growth in passenger need.

Mr. Jessel: Why should the Government think in terms of a second terminal at Gatwick, or a fourth terminal at Heathrow, thus inflicting more suffering on all those living near those places, instead of going ahead now with the third London airport which the Government said in their White Paper is needed? Why wait until the 1990s?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman knows that the question of the third London airport is much more complicated. It has engaged the minds of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for a number of years. There is the question where a third London airport, if it were decided that it was a national necessity, should be located. That is not an easy matter to decide. I do not think that I can be drawn further on that today.

Peak District National Park

2. Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to enable the board of the Peak District national park to be democratically elected.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): We have no immediate plans to change the arrangements for the administration of the Peak District national park. Following the Sandford report, the Government accepted that there would be advantage in reviewing the administration and staffing of national parks generally in 1981.

Mr. Knox: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those of my constituents who live in the Peak park feel that the board is insensitive to their wishes and tends to place the interests of visitors above theirs? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that there is a great deal of merit in allowing


them to elect a board direct, which would then be answerable to them?

Mr. Marks: The majority of the 33 members of the board—22 of them—are representative of councils in the national parks. The problem with the Peak park is that there are six county councils and nine district councils with areas within the park. When the Local Government Bill 1972 was being presented by the previous Government, strong representations were made by the district councils but were not accepted. My view is that the counties should give more consideration to representations by district councils.

Community Land Act

3. Mr. Andrew MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, to facilitate the building of new factories and the creation of new jobs, he will reconsider his decision not to allow local authorities to sell land freehold under the Community Land Act.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): No, Sir. The freehold interest should normally remain with the local authority. I have no evidence that this is a significant factor inhibiting industrial or commercial development.

Mr. MacKay: Is the Minister aware that certain large companies, particularly multinationals, will not buy factory sites unless they are freehold? Does he agree that it is disturbing when that means that jobs go to other countries in Europe? Would it not be sensible to sell these factory sites freehold where necessary and forget about political bigotry?

Mr. Barnett: I am not aware of that. Some firms prefer the freehold, often for precisely the reasons why we believe it should remain in community ownership. Leasehold land has been customary in new towns and in many local authority areas, and it has never caused difficulty.

Mr. Litterick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the level of ground rents and the sale value of land are significant factors in determining whether industrial and commercial premises are located in urban areas, or anywhere else? Since, under the Inner Urban Areas Act, large quantities of money are being poured into the urban areas, may we have an undertaking that the Department of the

Environment will monitor the level of land prices and ground rents in the inner urban areas?

Mr. Barnett: That strays a little far from the original question. This matter is under review. My hon. Friend is right to point out that a whole range of factors will determine decisions taken by industrialists when locating their firms.

Mr. Heseltine: Will the Minister consult the Secretary of State on this issue? I have had to intervene twice to secure the Secretary of State's permission for the sale of freehold, as opposed to leasehold, land. Do the Government understand that one reason why the Community Land Act has failed so signally and so little land has been resold is that industrialists wish to buy freehold and not leasehold land? Does he recognise that this is just one more irritant that is frustrating industrial development?

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Member is wrong. The evidence does not bear out what he has said. Many firms prefer the freehold for the same reasons that local authorities wish to keep it. There is hardly any evidence to suggest that what the hon. Member says is true. Indeed, the evidence of the new towns, stretching back many years, proves the opposite to be the truth.

Dangerous Substances (Emissions)

Mr. Ron Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the present regulations in regard to the emission of dangerous substances into the atmosphere; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to his question on 8 November 1978.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency there is considerable apprehension about the emission of dangerous substances into the atmosphere? May we have an assurance that departments of environmental health, such as that in Bristol, will be given sufficient resources to monitor and deal with this problem? May we have an assurance that the regulations governing chemical and other complexes are sufficiently comprehensive to regulate, control and monitor the emission of


dangerous substances into the atmosphere?

Mr. Howell: I understand my hon. Friend's concern and that of his constituents. A great deal of activity has taken place following the unfortunate leaks. The Alkali Inspectorate investigated the matter. The firm agreed to install new equipment to prevent the leaks of hydrofluoric acid, and it has spent £⅓ million on the project. The Alkali Inspectorate served a notice following the last incident in November to the effect that the firm would have to close by December if there were no administrative changes in its control room.
I am glad to say that no further incidents have been reported. There is an improvement in techniques which seems to be evident. A new technique for measuring hydrofluoric acid has been developed by the company, and both the company and the local authority are using it. I hope that this activity will help to reassure my hon. Friend and his constituents that everything possible is being done to preserve their safety.

Mr. Sainsbury: In view of the concern about this subject, which was reflected in the length of the Minister's reply, would it not be a good idea if the Government took action on the recommendation in the fifth report of the Commission on environmental pollution, created a pollution inspectorate and brought the Alkali Inspectorate back where it belongs, in the Department of the Environment?

Mr. Howell: That is an interesting suggestion which would affect both sides of industry as well as the Government. The suggestion is being considered and pursued as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is the Minister aware of the tests to ascertain the level of lead in the blood which are to be carried out in my constituency and elsewhere between Easter and Whitsuntide? When will the results of those tests be known? Will they be made public? Does he agree that public discussion on the results is necessary to decide what action might be necessary?

Mr. Howell: We always make the results of such tests public. We believe that it is vital that every possible piece of information is made known so that

intelligent discussions can take place. I cannot give a date for the publication of the findings because most of the work is being done and co-ordinated for us by outside agencies, but obviously we want to publish the results as soon as we can.

Local Authority Manual Workers

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state his policy towards the terms and conditions of employment for local authority manual workers.

Mr. Shore: The Government recognised that it was right for the lower paid group of the local authority work force to receive more favourable treatment and for their longer-term position to be improved, by introducing a new and, we believe, fairer method of establishing pay, by means of an independent comparability study. These elements were embodied in the final offer made by the local authority employers on 22 February, and I am glad to say that a clear majority of the workers concerned have now accepted it.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that hon. Members on this side of the House recognise that local authority manual workers do a vital job and have been low paid for too long? Does he also accept that this settlement represents a significant step forward and that we hope that it will go some way towards narrowing the disparity between highly paid local authority chiefs and the relatively poorly paid indians? Does he accept that this is a step forward and that the Government are making a positive contribution to the elimination of low pay?

Mr. Shore: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the settlement. I believe that the comparability study—which I hope will be a permanent feature in the determination of the pay of local government manual workers and, indeed, of other groups—will not only bring more fairness in the determination of the reward to those who do most important jobs, but will give a greater sense of fairness where it has been lacking.

Mr. Evelyn King: As the Secretary of State advocates a hierarchical system for wages and salaries, does one not arrive


at the irrefutable conclusion that some people must be the lower paid? Who does he think they should be?

Mr. Shore: That is a self-evident proposition. Unless one has a society in which everybody is paid exactly the same, some people must be lower paid than others. The essence of the argument has always involved the degrees of difference and disparity between people doing different jobs in the community.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can my right hon. Friend explain why he said recently that there was no more money in the kitty when, on the same day, the Prime Minister rightly said that a large grant was to be paid to the miners? If there is no more money in the kitty, how can the Secretary of State say that the comparability study will come forward with suggestions? Is not that either dishonest or not the full truth?

Mr. Shore: We can express our meaning in different ways. My hon. Friend could have interpreted my remarks to mean that we felt that we had come to the proper limit of the concessions that we should make this year in relation to the lower paid. He would have been right to interpret my remarks in that way. I wanted to make that absolutely plain, because without that certain affirmation on my behalf I think that the negotiations might have dragged on longer.

Council Houses (Sale)

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council homes and council flats were sold by local authorities to sitting tenants during the first nine months of the current financial year; and what was the equivalent figure for the same period of each of the two previous financial years.

Mr. Shore: It is estimated that, between April and December 1978, English local authorities sold 23,400 houses and 400 flats. During the equivalent periods in 1976 and 1977, when authorities did not differentiate in their returns between houses and flats, sales of 3,734 and 9,440 dwellings respectively were reported. Information on the proportion of dwellings sold to sitting tenants is not separately compiled, but the evidence that we have suggests that a

majority of such disposals would have been to sitting tenants.

Mr. Gow: Does the Secretary of State agree that the figures which he has just announced confirm the view which he expressed in his speech on Monday, that increasing numbers of council tenants have been and are anxious to buy their own houses, and will he say what proposals he has to meet precisely that demand which he himself acknowledged on Monday?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman ought to look a little more carefully at the announcement which I made. What I was determined to do was to put a stop to what I consider to be abuses, and the abuses are the sale of empty properties and newly built properties on the open market to people who, in my judgment, could just as easily acquire accommodation themselves in the private housing market. The argument about selling council houses or council properties to sitting tenants, especially in areas where there is not a great pressure—although there are many areas where there is still great pressure of housing need—is, in my view, rather different. Provided that the two years' residence rule is accepted, authorities will be free to continue to sell.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend accept warmest congratulations on his three steps this week, which will go a long way to help those on the waiting lists for council dwellings? Secondly, if the evil of this municipal asset stripping continues, will my right hon. Friend go further and consider the Labour Party's policy of stopping all sales at below market price, which gives a discount to certain people and an unfair incentive to damage a social asset?

Mr. Shore: In fact, most sales below market price, as my hon. Friend puts it, are of new properties, where the cost of building has been in excess of the actual sale price. I believe that the measure which I have announced will largely take care of that. Beyond that, there is the question of the discount, but against the discount has to be weighed the fact of pre-emption—the right to buy at the original sale price—which a council may be able to exercise in five years' time, and that is a matter which needs to be balanced very carefully.

Mr. Rossi: Can the Secretary of State give his estimates of the number of sales which will be diminished as a result of his announcement on Monday?

Mr. Shore: It is difficult to do that at the moment, because we shall have to compile—

Mr. Rossi: The right hon. Gentleman has no idea?

Mr. Shore: At the moment I literally do not have a full picture of the number of houses which are being kept empty by different councils in London and elsewhere in the hope of selling them. We know a good deal about the GLC figures because those have become available, but I do not yet have, at it were, a nationwide picture of the number of houses which are being kept empty.

Mr. Rossi: Is the Secretary of State telling the House that he announces policies without knowing the consequences of those policies?

Mr. Shore: That is an absurdity. The hon. Gentleman knows the position perfectly well. There are two aspects to the policy which I announced. The first is the number of houses which are empty at any given time. Secondly, there are the numbers which are about to be completed or are in the pipeline of construction and which, until I announced my change of policy, would have been sold. I cannot give an exact estimate of those figures, for obvious reasons.

Mr. Jay: Will my right hon. Friend say when the decision which he announced on Monday will come into force, since great damage is still now being done to housing in London by council house sales?

Mr. Shore: I have kept the period of consultation pretty short, and I intend to bring the new directive into effect at the end of next week.

Water Charges

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in the light of his recent discussions with the National Water Council, he has yet reached any conclusion with regard to a possible amendment of section 30 of the Water Act 1973.

Mr. Denis Howell: I have at present nothing to add to the reply that I gave the hon. Member on 31 January.

Mr. Hunt: Although the right hon. Gentleman was not, of course, responsible for the 1973 Act, he has been the responsible Minister for several years now. Does he realise that if the Act is not changed the shift from industry and commerce to the domestic consumer by 1981 could lead to increases of up to 50 per cent. in water charges for domestic consumers in Greater London and elsewhere? Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel, therefore, that he is sitting on a water bomb, and when will he do something about it?

Mr. Howell: I entirely agree that this is yet one more consequence of the Water Act 1973, against which my hon. Friends and I voted at the time. It was piloted through the House by the hon. Gentleman sitting on the Opposition Front Bench now, the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—

Mr. Heseltine: Wrong.

Mr. Howell: Well, since the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department, if he was not seeking to pilot the Bill through the House he was certainly not dissociating himself from it. The fact of the matter, as the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) says, is that in London in particular the switch of the weight of charges inherent in the Act will impose a considerable burden on domestic ratepayers in order to relieve commercial ratepayers. This is now being considered, but if it is to be put right and amending legislation introduced, we shall need the White Paper proposals. If the Opposition will give an undertaking that they will facilitate such proposals, we shall try to introduce them into the House at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why that was a bad measure was that it looked upon the supply and disposal of water virtually in a commercial sense alone, and will he confirm that after the Act was passed £100 million of rate support grant which would have gone to local authorities for sewerage works was removed by the Conservative Party?

Mr. Howell: That is certainly true, but I believe that the organisational changes


which were brought about—in particular, removing from municipal control large authorities which had previously been very successful—are something which the country is still rueing.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister consider with sympathy the need to amend the Act to allow water authorities not to have a completely uniform system of charging so that they may provide a rebate for pensioners and others on low incomes—a rebate similar to the rent or rate rebates which they would get through the local rates?

Mr. Howell: I understand that consideration, but it is not the Government's view that the service industries such as gas, electricty, Post Office and water should proceed in the same way as local authority services.

Mr. Rooker: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer which he has just given to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley)? Is my right hon. Friend so out of touch with reality that he does not appreciate how vast has been the imposition of water rate increases as a result of their being taken off local domestic rates, so that pensioners and the low-paid are being hit very hard by the new charge? These people do not look at it in the way of gas and electricity services, as my right hon. Friend suggests. This is a charge which has been removed from an area in which they could get a rebate to one where they now cannot. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his answer?

Mr. Howell: I shall not reconsider it because my hon. Friend is totally wrong. Water charges have never been subject to rate rebates, and there is therefore no change in this situation. I could understand my hon. Friend arguing that they ought to be, but the fact is that water charges were never included in ordinary local rate rebates.

Mr. Heseltine: Will the Minister tell us the difference in the number of people employed in the water industry now compared with the number before the reorganisation brought about by the Act, and when he tells the House that there has been practically no increase in the number of staff, will he admit that the real reason why water rates have risen is, first, wage inflation over the past four

years, and, secondly, the vast increase in interest charges on the capital investment of the industry?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the effect of wages. It is a capital-intensive industry. I agree that one of the factors is interest charges. The recent increase of 9 per cent. on the basic rate of pay for workers in the industry will produce an increase in the water bill of less than 1 per cent. Wage increases in the water industry are not responsible for the considerable increase in prices.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in the light of public sector pay settlements, he will consider further representations from those county councils who have suffered from his Department's redistribution of the rate support grant.

Mr. Shore: No, Sir. Pay settlements affect all authorities and the distribution of the grant in the 1979–80 rate support grant settlement was designed to avoid excessive losses to authorities.

Mr. Renton: May I revert to the relevant supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis)? Is not it a fact that the Government first suggested a comparability study to NUPE officials at a meeting at which local authority representatives were not present and that local authorities were confronted with a fait accompli? Would it not be right for the Government to commit themselves to paying additional rate support grant to cover the cost of any differentials established by that comparability study or by others set up by the Government, such as the one on teachers' salaries?

Mr. Shore: It is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to say that local authority associations were faced with a fait accompli with the development of comparability studies. There were many discussions with the local authority associations and the trade unions before we agreed on the proposal for a comparability study. I have already made it plain that the rate support grant cash limit will be adjusted to take account of the increase that is due to lower-paid workers as a result of the settlement.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when I complained to the House about the shortcomings of Westminster city council both Tory and Liberal Members argued that the only remedy was to change the political composition of the council? Does he agree that if the electors were to return Labour majorities we might be persuaded that the counties are in favour of public expenditure? Is it not nauseating that the shire counties are in favour of increased public expenditure only if somebody else provides the money?

Mr. Shore: The attitude of Conservative Members is extraordinarily insensitive to the needs of the country as a whole. Naturally, as we all do, they speak for their own areas, but the blindness that they exhibit to the needs of the cities and the great conurbations becomes apparent as each rate support grant order comes before the House.

Mr. Montgomery: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the distribution of rate support grant? Is he aware that district councils such as Trafford have been clobbered for two years running in terms of their share of rate support grant? Although the Trafford council has effected as many economies as possible, Trafford ratepayers will be faced with an enormous burden this year. Is he aware that the general view is that squandermania councils seem to get the money and that councils that look after the interests of the ratepayers are those that get hammered?

Mr. Shore: That is an extremely partial statement. It is not for me to comment on the rating decisions of local authorities. The hon. Gentleman knows that we try to find the best methods of estimating need and to pay rate support grant needs element on that basis. We do our utmost to be impartial.

Mr. Alison: We are encouraged by the Secretary of State helpfully saying that cash limits will be adjusted to take account of the latest settlement for public sector workers. As the settlement includes a £1 payment in anticipation of that which the comparability study finally yields, may we take it that cash limits will be adjusted to take account of the full and final settlement when comparability is established?

Mr. Shore: Account will be taken of that. The hon. Gentleman is referring to what may emerge from the comparability study and payment from 1 August. We shall adjust the cash limit to take account of that. The local authorities impressed upon me that they would take aboard the £1 payment on account in the 22-week period between now and 1 August.

Houses (Construction and Improvement)

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dwellings have been built in the public and private sectors in the past five years: and how many dwelling have been improved in the same period.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): In the five years up to the end of 1978 1,479,900 dwellings were built in the public and private sectors. The figure for dwellings converted or improved with the aid of grant or subsidy from the beginning of 1974 up to the end of September 1978 is 1,037,300.

Mr. Rooker: I thank my right hon. Friend for supplying those figures. Is he convinced that the mix is right? Is he sure that enough smaller dwellings are being built in the public and private sectors so that those who are getting on in years who wish to move out of large three-bedroom houses, whether they be council or owner-occupied properties, have a suitable house to which they may move? If they have smaller dwellings they will have properties with lower rateable values, which in turn means lower rates and smaller sewerage charges. Contrary to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said a short time ago, rebates cannot be obtained on sewerage charges. If we can get the mix of dwellings right, everybody will be helped.

Mr. Freeson: I am not persuaded that enough smaller dwellings are being built in the public or private sectors. I have been doing my best in the past five years, as I did when not in my present office, to persuade local authorities and builders to switch over to providing many more smaller dwellings to take account not only of the needs of the retired, although I take strongly the point that my hon. Friend has made, but of the demographic revolution that has taken place. It must


be borne in mind that 50 per cent. of households in Britain are now one and two-person households. Neither our existing housing stock nor the building programmes of the private or public sector meet the need that has been produced by demographic change throughout the country.

Mr. Michael Morris: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel pretty ashamed of the results of his efforts of the past five and a half years? If he had only kept the level of total house building at the 1973 level, another 1 million families would be living in either new or improved dwellings.

Mr. Freeson: I am much in favour of doing more and more about housing, in whatever office I hold. I am not ashamed of what we have done against the background of the most major economic crisis that Britain has faced for 50 years. The hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. If we had pursued the 1973 level—there were fewer than 300,000 completions in that year—throughout the years that we have been in office, we would have achieved less than has been done.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to cause an investigation to be made into the manner in which the London borough of Ealing is maladministering the conversion of a sector of homes in the Hanwell district of my constituency, which is causing grave distress to the tenants?

Mr. Freeson: If my hon. Friend will give me details, I shall investigate the matter. His supplementary question gives me the opportunity to say that I hope that more local authorities will consider the procedures that they adopt in handling improvement grant applications. There is a great deal to be done to streamline the procedures that are used in many areas.

Mr. Rossi: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the most dramatic and disturbing reduction in house building has occurred in the private sector? That has resulted in about 250,000 employees being thrown out of work. Is he concerned about that dramatic reduction, and what steps is he actively taking to improve the situation?

Mr. Freeson: Let us get our facts right. The hon. Gentleman is wrong again. The figure for the year following the collapse of the boom in 1973 in the private sector was just over 100,000 housing starts. Starts have gradually risen—not as rapidly as I would have liked—to 157,000 in 1978 and a prospect of over 160,000 in 1979. There has been an increase and not a reduction following the collapse of the boom that was our inheritance from the Conservative Government. My most immediate concern, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will share, is to deal with the reduction of housing activity by many local authorities throughout the country. That applies across the board. However, the majority of local authorities that have reduced housing activity happen to be controlled by members of the hon. Gentleman's party. I trust that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) will join me in asking and urging Tory and other councils to do more and to take up the resources that we are providing.

Refuse

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with local authorities in the Greater London area on the co-ordination of measures to clear up the backlog of refuse which has accumulated in different boroughs, as a result of the re-fuse collectors' industrial action.

Mr. Shore: We have kept in close touch with local authorities in the Greater London area. Particular authorities have had difficulties, but none has sought direct assistance from the Government. There has been a gradual improvement in refuse collection and disposal services in most London boroughs since the final offer was made by the local authority employers on 22 February. Now that union members have endorsed the pay settlement, that improvement should be greatly accelerated.

Mr. Dykes: I thank the Secretary of State for that detailed reply. In view of the bad effect on morale in the London area, where there is still a great deal of rubbish lying around in different boroughs, does he think it would be right for the Government to go further and encourage local authorities to bring in private contractors to assist in clearing up


the backlog and to make a RSG payment, which would not be very large, to help this exercise?

Mr. Shore: I do not think that ad hoc machinery would now be appropriate. London's refuse collection is, in any case complex, given the different responsibilities for collection and disposal that exist. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about morale. It affects people's morale to find piles of litter accumulating over a long period of time. However, I think that the existing procedure is well established. This is not the first time that there have been refuse collection strikes. There are well established procedures for dealing with this problem. Where competent authorities decree that there is a fire hazard or a health risk which is sufficient to warrant urgent action, they have a duty to act and, if need be, to call in contractors and to use any other method to meet their statutory obligations.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, following the recent agreement between the trade unions and the local authorities, the piles of rubbish, especially in South London, are already beginning to disappear, in spite of the fact that the agreement is only 36 hours old? It is a great credit to the local authorities, the associations and trade unions that this agreement has been reached.

Mr. Shore: I am glad to hear that there is noticeable improvement in South London. However, there are some areas where the accumulations are large and where it is important that people make an early return to work.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: To avoid a repetition of this disgusting affair, will the Secretary of State encourage local authorities to consider refuse collection by private contractors? Is he aware that the district council in Essex which decided to go over to private contract did so with the full co-operation of the regions and that there has been no interruption of refuse collection? The work force is contented and there has been a huge saving in public money.

Mr. Shore: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. The best way to prevent a repetition of this affair is to establish the kind of fairness in pay determination

which I believe the comparability arrangements will achieve. One additional feature of this comparability agreement, to which I attach great importance, is the acceptance in advance by the unions and employers concerned of the findings of this independent body.

Mr. Fernyhough: Before he considers the suggestion that has just been made may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he realises that, if we exclude the past three months, the vast majority of strikes occurred in the private, not the public sector? Therefore, we may be storing up more trouble for ourselves if we transfer this public work to the private sector.

Mr. Shore: I am not encouraging any such movement. The best way to ensure peace in sensitive parts of the public services is to have a method of pay determination which is fair, and is seen to be fair.

Mr. Heseltine: Will the Secretary of State deal with the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison)? Will he look again at the benefits that will accrue to the ratepayers of Maldon by using the private sector for the collection of refuse? Will he examine the benefits that have occurred and put forward the arguments fairly to the House so that Members of Parliament may make a judgment based not on mythology but on savings to ratepayers and benefits to union members involved?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman is being mischievous. He is obviously trying to stir things up in a totally unhelpful way. This is a matter for local authorities to decide. If the hon. Gentleman is serious about wishing to avoid a repetition of this wretched business he should welcome the progress that we have made to establish comparability.

Planning Inquiries (Aid to Objectors)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in preparing legislation to enable persons appearing at a local planning inquiry to receive financial aid to engage professional advice.

Mr. Guy Barnett: My right hon. Friend is considering this question in the light of the representations made to him.

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that when his right hon. Friend agrees to a local inquiry, usually at the behest of the ordinary people of the area, and he appoints an inspector, the local authority has present its legal officers and chief planning officers, and that if a big organisation is involved it has its lawyers and planning experts there?
Ordinary people have nothing comparable to that. They are disadvantaged from the beginning. Does the Minister agree that the time is ripe for him to consider each local public inquiry and decide whether the local people involved are entitled to some assistance so that they are at least on even terms with those to whom they are opposed?

Mr. Barnett: I know that on occasion individuals and groups feel overawed by the advice which the large organisations have. However, this may often be exaggerated. It is not normally necessary for objecting parties who engage themselves in an inquiry voluntarily to incur an expensive outlay in presenting their case. It is the duty of the inspector—I underline this—and any assessors he may have to satisfy themselves on all the relevant issues.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does my hon. Friend accept that the dice are heavily loaded against the objectors at any public inquiry? The planning officer recommends a scheme, which is approved by the town planning committee. Therefore, the residents in an area which will be totally disrupted as a consequence of any such scheme are heavily disadvantaged by the situation in which they find themselves. Does the Minister agree that there is no fundamental difficulty in sorting out the irrelevant objections from the serious objections in the way that cases put to the Legal Aid Committee are sorted out? Will he look into this matter more seriously?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are not being fair when they argue a case instead of asking a question.

Mr. Barnett: My right hon. Friend recognises that there is a great deal of anxiety about this matter, especially where financial support may be necessary because of the technological research that might be needed to examine the case properly.
The inspector in a normal public inquiry is expected to obtain information about all the relevant issues before he recommends his decision. It is on that basis that he proceeds. Therefore, someone who is not represented need not feel that his case is likely to go by default in a public inquiry.

House Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Act 1978

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the regional price limits fixed under the House Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Act 1978.

Mr. Freeson: The illustrative limits we have published will be revised to take account of price movements. The limits which will apply when first home loan payments are made in 1980 will be set, by order, during that year.

Mr. Atkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that by fixing these regional price limits he is effectively excluding from the scheme thousands of young couples who live in areas of low income but high housing costs, such as in my constituency in Bournemouth? What plan does the Minister intend to draw up to help those young couples who have been discriminated against in this way?

Mr. Freeson: I have answered that in part already by making it clear that the regional price limits that we have published so far are for guidance only. The price limits that we shall decide upon in 1980 will take account of price movements. However, in the meantime I assure the hon. Gentleman that the scheme, as we have designed it, and the limits that we set regionally, are aimed to provide cover for two-thirds of first-time house purchasers. During last year about two-thirds of first-time buyers in the South-West were buying at prices below £13,300, which is the present guide figure for the region.

Building Materials (Inquiry)

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what benefits are expected to flow to the construction industry from the 1979 inquiry into purchases of building materials.

Mr. Freeson: Manufacturers and contractors will benefit from the better understanding of the construction market which the inquiry will provide, and from the improved price and cost indices my Department will be able to produce.

Mr. Tebbit: In view of the structure of the industry and the large number of very small firms on the building and construction side, does the Minister agree that it would have been much easier to get the same information out of an inquiry into sales of building materials rather than one into purchases of building materials?

Mr. Freeson: I take the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and in fact it was considered, but, without going into detail at Question Time, the position is that the interplay of buying and selling inside the industry led us to the conclusion that the best way of establishing information would be by going to the consumer, that is to say, the purchaser of materials. In designing the system we excluded large numbers of the small building firms. We have not included in the surveys any firm, for example, employing fewer than 20 people. Very large numbers have been excluded.

Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend will no doubt have read the Labour Party report on the building materials industry. As a number of monopolies control the industry, has not the time come to move in and bring them under control in order to reduce the price of materials in the industry?

Mr. Freeson: The only case to my knowledge which has been the subject of report in recent times concerns the cement producers. I am not aware of any others, but in any deliberations that we undertake in this direction I shall take account of any other information we receive.

Association of County Councils

Mr. Michael Spicer: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to meet representatives of the Association of County Councils.

Mr. Shore: I have regular and frequent contact with representatives of the Association of County Councils.

Mr. Spicer: When the Secretary of State next meets the representatives of the

ACC, will he tell them—particularly in view of answers given today to the effect that the rates in most counties are likely to go up by about 30 per cent.—whether the Government have any plans to reform this increasingly unfair method of taxation?

Mr. Shore: I do not accept that, and I repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I have said to the House on previous occasions, but not today, that, following the change in the allocation of needs element between shire counties and shire districts, there is an exceptional and inevitable increase in county rates this time, just as we believe there will be a somewhat exceptional reduction in shire district rates as a consequence of that change.

Mr. Grocott: Will my right hon. Friend point out to the Association of County Councils that its reactions to his plans for organic change have been entirely predictable and very boring? Does he agree that by far and away the best form of local government that this country has seen is the county borough form of local government, which was largely controlled by the Labour Party? Does he look forward, with me, to the day when we shall have unitary authorities throughout the country and get rid of county councils and the Association of County Councils?

Mr. Shore: I readily endorse my hon. Friend's tribute to the work of the county boroughs in the past, and I very much regret the way in which they were submerged in the reorganisation of 1972. May I encourage my hon. Friend now to look to the future? I understand that the proposals that we have put forward for organic change—for giving more powers to districts and taking some of the powers away from the remote counties—now have the agreement and endorsement, at least in principle, of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). That, after all, is a quite considerable conversion.

Mr. Heseltine: When the Secretary of State meets the ACC, will he discuss with it its recent publication on the growth of central Government control over local authorities? Will he explore the values to the ratepayer and taxpayer which could emerge if there were a freeing of the discretions of local government and the benefits which could come as a result


of the greater efficiency and the lower cost of far less detailed central scrutiny?

Mr. Shore: I shall discuss that with the ACC. Indeed, I willingly joined the local authorities and encouraged them to set up precisely this study. I hope, however, that my discussions with the ACC will not be confined to those matters. I very much want to hear the results of the studies in which the ACC is engaged in the new working party set up by the hon. Gentleman to consider further the question of organic change.

Post-war Houses (Damp)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the extent of damp in post-war houses; what research his Department is doing into its causes and effects; and what proposals he has to combat the problem.

Mr. Freeson: There is no precise information on the extent of dampness. However, my Department and the Building Research Establishment have carried out much research into this, and advice notes for housing authorities and householders will shortly be issued.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister accept that thousands of houses are being built today without cavity wall insulation? Will he help to overcome this problem by slightly relaxing the permitted cost limit? For instance, this morning Salford council is asking for £90 extra on each house in the case of 570 new houses. That would overcome this disadvantage.

Mr. Freeson: If Salford council has proposals to make to me, I shall be glad to consider them. They have not yet been received by me. Speaking more generally, it is not true to say that many thousands of dwellings are being built today with substandard insulation. No doubt arguments could be put in favour of better standards of insulation, especially in view of the need for energy conservation, but it is a subject which has to be looked at with very great care indeed, in both technical and economic terms. It should not be assumed that by increasing insulation standards and ignoring other factors we shall get better results. I am committed generally to this approach, but we have to take several factors into

account before we come to a conclusion on the matter.

Mr. Tebbit: Do not most of the complaints which most hon. Members of this House receive come from the tenants of post-war council houses? Do not many of the complaints concern condensation which is caused because the tenants cannot afford to run the excessively expensive heating systems which have been installed?

Mr. Freeson: I believe that there is evidence of that. It is one of many pieces of evidence that we have. I have some cases in my own constituency in London. The installation of certain kinds of heating systems has contributed to costs and to inefficient heating standards. In a large number of cases, however, the installation of those heating systems, to reduce costs, occurred at a time when housing cost yardsticks were being held down and not reviewed sensitively in the light of changing costs. That was before my time, and not since. It was under the last Tory Government.

Coastal Protection Schemes

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes introducing to alter the basis for eligibility for grant aid and loan sanction for local authorities to undertake coastal protection schemes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Denis Howell: None at present. However, I intend, when resources permit, to review both the provisions of the Coast Protection Act 1949 and the way in which it is administered.

Mr. Hicks: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, under the existing arrangements, there are certain inconsistencies and anomalies between grant-aid available for new schemes on the one hand, and renovations on the other, particularly where private households are involved and where these homes form the sea wall? Is not there an urgent need for a review of the arrangements, specifically bearing in mind what has happened in villages in Devon and Cornwall this winter?

Mr. Howell: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. That is why I want to put such a survey in


hand as soon as I can. The Act has been in force since 1949. It produces tremendous disparities, particularly in Government grants, which range widely from 24 per cent. to 79 per cent. I hope that we can make progress as soon as resources are available.

Local Authority Houses (Back Boilers)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that under modernisation schemes every house owned by local authorities shall have a fireplace with a back boiler installed.

Mr. Freeson: No, Sir. It is for the local authority concerned to decide what sort of space and water heating should be installed in modernised dwellings in the light of local needs and circumstances.

Mr. Wainwright: Does not my right hon. Friend feel that he is reneging on his duty and responsibility? Is he aware that in the Mexborough area houses are being modernised and gas fires are being installed without any back boilers? Is it not crazy that in these days when central heating is being installed we cannot even make funds available to the local authorities to instal back boilers?

Mr. Freeson: That is not the position. The decision on particular heating systems lies with the local authorities and their professional advisers and designers. We do our best to review the housing cost yardstick, which affects these matters, on a quarterly basis. We do it regionally to take account of all local factors on price and costs. Against that background, I do not accept that it is for me to direct local authorities about their particular heating systems.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAY COMPARABILITY (COMMISSION)

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the establishment of a Standing Commission on pay comparability.
In my speech to the House on 16 January I commented on the present method of fixing pay and conditions in some areas of the public services and expressed the Government's readiness to

see a greater role for measuring their pay and conditions by making comparisons with pay for comparable work and effort in other occupations where both sides so requested.
This suggestion was carried further in the recent joint Government-TUC statement as a means of averting strike action in areas which affect public health and safety, and we undertook to identify groups which might be covered by such agreements.
The Government have a responsibility both to be fair to public service employees and to avoid arrangements which could in themselves prove inflationary. Comparability studies must therefore be made in a systematic and thorough manner, taking all relevant factors into account.
A Standing Commission on pay comparability is accordingly being set up by the Government to examine the terms and conditions of employment of particular groups of workers referred to it by the Government, in agreement with the employers and unions concerned, and to report in each case on the possibility of establishing acceptable bases of comparison, including comparisons with terms and conditions for other comparable work, and of maintaining appropriate internal relativities. Any further role for the Commission in each case will be a matter for agreement between the Government and the parties.
The chairman of the Commission will be Professior Hugh Clegg, and members will include Sir Leslie Williams, Sir William Ryland, Mr. Peter Gibson, Mr. Harry Urwin and Dr. Joan Mitchell. Other members will be announced in due course.
During the recent negotiations on the pay of local authority manual workers, National Health Service ancillary workers, ambulance men and university manual workers, it was agreed as part of the proposed settlements that a study should be made of acceptable bases of comparisons for these groups. It has also been agreed that these groups should now be investigated by this new Standing Commission.
In the case of these groups, it has been agreed that the Commission will make recommendations which the Government and the trade unions concerned have undertaken to accept. The Commission


is being asked to report on these groups by 1 August 1979.
The staging of implementation of these recommendations was also agreed as part of the pay negotiations. The Commission will start work on these assignments as soon as each settlement is reached. Other groups will be referred to the Commission from time to time by agreement.
The TUC informs me that it fully associates itself with the establishment of the Commission. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be responsible for these new arrangements, which should help us in future years to avoid the dislocation and hardship that the public have suffered in recent weeks.
This is a difficult area in which to determine proper rates of pay, but I believe that these new arrangements will commend themselves to the public as a sensible way forward.

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not find the statement wholly clear. Is the Prime Minister aware that there appears to be a fundamental contradiction on two matters? He said at the beginning of his statement that the main task of the Commission in relation to any group of workers that was referred to it would be to report in each case on the possibility of establishing acceptable bases of comparison. I understand that that is to be the Commission's main role.
Towards the end of the statement, before a shred of evidence has been examined, the Prime Minister then assumes that there is a basis of comparability in relation to four particular groups. Apparently the Commission must assume that, and then go on to make recommendations presumably about pay levels. Is this Commission not to undertake the task of seeing whether there are possible bases for comparability in these cases but to go straight in and make recommendations? There is a fundamental contradiction. Is the "possibility" role to be carried out first? This has significance, because not only has the Prime Minister assumed that there are bases of comparison: he has even paid £1 on account. How does he reconcile those two factors?
Secondly, the Prime Minister makes the point that the Government's job is

to avoid arrangements that could prove inflationary in themselves. How does he intend to ensure that the recommendations of this body are within the cash limits that the Treasury has provided to meet these wage claims? In the private sector Labour Members are always urging industrialists not to pass on increasing pay claims in increasing prices. Does that obtain in the public sector as well? Is the Prime Minister urging public sector concerns not to pass on increasing pay bills in increased taxes, rates and borrowing?
Thirdly, and finally, as there are a large number of other review bodies whose work must include comparability studies, will their work be subsumed in the Standing Commission, or will it continue?

The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition says correctly that the work of the Commission, certainly in the first four cases, is divided into two parts. First, it must make an examination of the feasibility of these studies, and both parties must accept that such comparisons are feasible. When it has done that, it is agreed that it should then carry through the results of such an agreed feasibility study into recommendations which the Government and local authority employers have agreed to accept on this occasion for these four cases. I understand that this is a little difficult, but the role is quite clear and is understood by the trade unions which will take their cases to the Standing Commission. It is important to get the agreement of all those concerned.
The Leader of the Opposition said that it was assumed that there was a basis for an increase because I had paid them an extra £1 a week already. She is wrong. That extra £1 was not part of the Government's agreement. That was the arrangement entered into by the local authority employers with the unions concerned when they were meeting together without the presence or assistance of the Secretary of State for the Environment. They reported this matter to him, and they must bear this increase on the rates. The right hon. Lady is quite wrong to say that I have undertaken to pay £1 on account. Presumably the local authorities have felt themselves covered by this matter, because it is for them and not


something that the Government have proposed.
The Leader of the Opposition also asked whether the payments would be within the cash limits. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a very carefully drafted statement on this matter in order to try to meet the points that the right hon. Lady has raised, and I have nothing further to add to it.
On the question whether the arrangements for other groups will be subsumed in the work of the Commission—at present the answer is "No". However, if they express a desire to enter into the new arrangements—indeed, I hope that the Standing Commission will grow in authority—I should wish to see that possibility examined with care.
Finally, perhaps I am naive to be a little surprised that the right hon. Lady did not express some appreciation of the fact that we are entering into a system that could avoid the dislocation of recent weeks.

Mr. David Steel: It is obviously sensible to secure new machinery rather than a series of individual ad hoc inquiries of the sort that we have had, but may I ask the Prime Minister for clarification of the terms of reference of the Commission? Will it be able to avoid inflationary settlements by also examining the scope for productivity deals in assessing comparability, or will that be outside its terms of reference? What is the difference between the terms of reference of this body and those of the Prices and Incomes Board, which was abolished in 1970, and the Relativities Board, which was abolished in 1974? Is it not time to make an effort to establish a permanent pay body to adjudicate in these matters?

The Prime Minister: I cannot answer the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question because I do not have the terms of reference of those bodies in front of me. It will be for the parties to argue in front of the Standing Commission and for the Commission to consider whether particular factors are relevant to the comparability exercise and what weighting to give to them. The Commission will consider the submissions and will weigh the individual points and considerations—whether on productivity, the value to attach to job security, index-linked pensions, or holiday or sickness

arrangements. The parties will argue those matters in front of the Commission and the Commission will rule on them.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Since the introduction of the Commission has arisen from increasing evidence that public sector pay has been falling behind that of the private sector, does not the establishment of the Commission presume that there must be a continuing incomes policy in the future, in order that the pay in the private sector should be brought roughly into line with the increase in real wealth in the economy?

The Prime Minister: That depends on what period one takes. One cannot draw a general conclusion and say that pay in the public sector has fallen behind. It depends what years are taken for that purpose. We should try to avoid the leapfrogging that takes place when public servants—I take them as a hypothetical illustration—receive substantial increases that are supposed to bring them up to private sector increases and that the private sector then uses in order to build new claims. That is the merry-go-round—the circularity—that produces inflation.
It is inherent in this arrangement that the circularity will not be allowed to persist. In the joint statement, the TUC said that it recognised that this could happen, and it does not intend to base its claims in that way. As for the question of a continuing incomes policy, I believe that more and more people are coming to the conclusion, certainly within the public sector, where free collective bargaining clearly does not apply, that an incomes policy is becoming more and more self-evident.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the Prime Minister examine what happened with the Services pay review body, which attempted to establish these comparability studies? It was a total failure. Are we to regurgitate all the failures of previous Governments? Surely that would delude the workers and guarantee inflation. I hope that the Prime Minister will withdraw this preposterous suggestion.

The Prime Minister: It is easy to criticise the arrangements. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he thinks that the arrangements are not worth a trial and that he would rather the public put up with what they have over the recent


weeks in the absence of such arrangements, he is entitled to his opinion. Very few people will share it. We must learn from the efforts of previous Governments, including the Administration of the right hon. Gentleman, and try to build upon them.
There is a new disposition, as the Government and TUC agreement makes clear, because an important part of that agreement is concerned with this matter. Everybody understands the problems that we face. We must make a fresh effort to solve them. I hope that there will be some understanding that the unions are willing to join in this fresh attempt.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Prime Minister see the body as a short-term "fire brigade" action or does he see it as a long-term form of arbitration which the Government have committed themselves to accepting? Does he accept that it is surprising that the nurses and the teachers have not been referred to in the series of inquiries? Does the statement indicate that the Government are announcing that they accept the findings of the Pay Research Unit in relation to the Civil Service?

The Prime Minister: The body is certainly not short-term; that is why it is called a Standing Commission. For the workers and unions who accept the arrangement, its value is that it is not an ad hoc body which is set up, establishes a level of remuneration, and is then dispersed so that the groups of workers concerned feel, after the lapse of a few years, that they have to go through the process again. This body is a Standing Commission, and those who accept the arrangements will be entitled to regular reviews by the Commission.
The nurses were not included for a specific reason. As I have said, there must be agreement by the parties concerned—in this case, the unions that represent the nurses as well as the Government. The Government have made clear to the representatives of the nurses that they are ready to submit the case to the Commission, subject to the nurses' agreement. The nurses have not accepted the proposals so far. It is a matter for them, and they are still negotiating. I should like to make clear that the body seems to me to be a valuable one for the

nurses to refer their outstanding grievances to. It would be able to determine objectively the strength of their case. I do not prejudge their case.
The teachers have their own separate negotiating machinery. I told the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition that we do not intend to compel anybody to go to the Commission. I believe that the body can grow in authority, and perhaps other bodies, in due course, will want to come under its umbrella.

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend indicate how the body will affect the construction workers among public workers? Is he aware that UCATT has made a claim based on comparability? By what method would such claims be dealt with? Will they go through the normal machinery, or can the union or the employers, either jointly or separately, appeal to go to the Commission to discuss the case? This is a serious question, and there is no propaganda in my remarks. I should like to know the answer.

The Prime Minister: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would ask that question of the Secretary of State for Employment. I should not like to give a false answer on a group of workers about whose conditions I am not clear. If those workers claimed under this heading, both the union and the employers would have to agree to go to the Commission.

Mr. David Price: Will the Prime Minister accept from one practised in this area and who is by no means unsympathetic to his announcement that there is no such thing as a purely scientific objective comparison between various wage rates? Will he further accept that if anything is done it is important that it should be acceptable to the people concerned? It is most likely to be acceptable at local level, where, when differentials are wrong, they cause most trouble. The lower down the line this can be done, the better. The higher it is done, the more likely it is to go wrong.

The Prime Minister: I have also had experience in this area. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no scientific or objective basis for calculating pay rates. However, there must be some basis for settlement, and we must do the best that we can. It is a muddled subject, and we are trying to find our way through


it. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about determinations at local level being more acceptable. I shall bear that in mind in future discussions that my right hon. Friend will have with the unions, in order to see whether and to what extent the Standing Commission could be used for this purpose.

Mr. John Ellis: When the Commission has carried out its immediate work of comparison, will it be able to make comments on the efficacy of such matters as allowing workers in the public sector, particularly those who do not strike, to follow the normal wage drift, whatever it may be in any year? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that was the practice in the Civil Service and that it stood the country in good stead for many years? The Civil Service followed on behind other settlements and usually had its own settlements backdated. The system was abolished by Selwyn Lloyd, and has led to a great deal of trouble in the public sector. Would the Commission be able to consider such matters?

The Prime Minister: I should like to study what my hon. Friend said. Broadly speaking, I take the view that the Commission will be free—it is an independent body—to comment on any aspect that it thinks is appropriate in these areas. I have indicated some of the areas in which I am sure that it will want to adjudicate, but it would be for the parties concerned to bring before the Commission matters that they regard as relevant and for the Commission to judge whether those factors are relevant in the determination of a case.

Mr. Heseltine: Going back to the question of cash limits, which are crucial in the rate-fixing process that is under way, the Secretary of State for the Environment said during Question Time earlier that cash limits would be adjusted to take account of the comparability settlement. Can the Prime Minister confirm that if the comparability findings increase the level of local authority expenditure, that will be fully reflected in the Government's willingness to pay their share of the extra costs as laid down in the rate support grant calculations?

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be considerable

satisfaction in the country at the prospect of avoiding the history of ad hoc settlements of large sums, followed by years when the workers concerned have felt let down? My right hon. Friend said that the first Commission report was expected by August. Will that cover both the feasibility study and any recommendations that may arise?

The Prime Minister: I agree with what my hon. Friend said in the first part of his question. One of the aspects of the new arrangement that should appeal to various groups is that it is not an ad hoc arrangement. It will be a Standing Commission which will have the opportunity, if both sides concerned with a pay claim wish, to review conditions at regular intervals—yearly, two-yearly, or whatever is agreed.
We may be able to escape from what my hon. Friend regards as a real grievance of an ad hoc group having been established, reporting and disappearing, leaving the group concerned feeling that it has fallen behind and needs another ad hoc inquiry and another large increase which will feed its way backwards into other settlements.
On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we are setting the Commission a rather fast pace for the first few months. We have agreed—and we ask the Commission to live up to our agreement—that it should fulfil both its study of the feasibility of such a comparability exercise and produce recommendations by 1 August.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Prime Minister aware that he is embarking on a most difficult and dangerous exercise? Is he further aware that I spent many years dealing with the subject? Does he realise that it is difficult to fix salaries without regard to market forces and the supply and demand for the jobs concerned? For example, in comparisons between public and private sector jobs, it must be realised that there is an enormous risk to job security in the private sector but absolute security in the public sector. In regard to this new quango and these high-salaried jobs, why does the Prime Minister not ask personnel managers to do the job, since they do it for nothing?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that we are embarking on a difficult task. I


have been aware of that all winter, but I do not know that it will be any more difficult than some of the experiences that we have lived through during the past few weeks. It is worth our while to try a new system, especially as we are embarking on it with the good will and assent of those principally concerned. There have been times when they would not have looked at such a proposition, and it is important that we should encourage steps in this direction.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, of course such matters as job security or performance measurement would have to be brought forward by one of the two sides, if it wished to do so, in the consideration of comparability. If a man is in a job in which he has permanent security and an index-linked pension, that is clearly a factor that the independent Commission would want to take into account when assessing the value of that job against a job in private enterprise that the man might lose. Those are obvious factors which must be taken into account.
I thought that someone would have to get in a reference to a quango at some stage, but both bodies that will be servicing the Standing Commission—the Office of Manpower Economics and the Pay Research Unit—were set up by Conservative Governments, and all that will be involved is an extension of their work, which will largely be done by the people recruited by the Conservatives when they were in office. The hon. Gentleman should not devour his children with such relish.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Is it intended that the Commission should take over the functions of the various arbitration boards available to nationalised industries? When the Commission completes its studies, will the recommendations be binding on the parties concerned?

The Prime Minister: The taking over of the functions of bodies concerned with nationalised industries is not included in the new arrangement. It will be for those concerned to come forward with proposals. We are not shackling anyone to the new arrangement. It will be for the parties concerned to present their case and for the Government to consider whether it would be advantageous to alter existing arrangements.
As to whether the settlements would be binding, the answer in relation to the first four cases that I have outlined is "Yes". That was part of the package negotiated on the pay settlement. With future cases, it will be a matter for agreement between the parties before they go to the Standing Commission whether an assessment, verdict or ruling by the Commission should be binding. The parties would have to agree that before going to the Commission.

Mr. Sainsbury: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Commission will be able to make recommendations that are conditional upon the achievement of improvements in productivity, whether or not they involve a reduction in establishment? If it makes such recommendations, will the Commission or some other body be responsible for safeguarding the interests of the taxpayer and the ratepayer by monitoring the achievement of improvements in productivity?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that it would be for the Commission to decide what it wants to take into account. I cannot confirm or deny the hon. Gentleman's question. It is an independent Commission, and it understands the general terms under which it will be working. It must decide what general factors it will take into account.
I have not yet given consideration to the question how the interests of any group are to be safeguarded, whether it be those to whom an award is made or the taxpayers who may have to foot the bill. Those are arrangements that will have to follow on, but I am glad to be able to say that, with the ink scarcely dry on the TUC agreement, we have managed to carry it much further in the space of two or three weeks than has been possible in a matter of years.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is another view about the whole question of incomes policies—and it is known as the Labour Party policy view? Does he understand that this crowd of unaccountable moonlighters will not discover any financial device or instrument for transferring wages from one set of working people to another? Is he aware that in the real world, what really hapens is that the workers make the


sacrifices and get hammered and the wealthy groups in our society, such as the speculators in gilts who made a killing recently, pick up all the money that is around arising out of all the efforts at incomes policies that have been arranged in the past 20 years?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend exercises his usual arrogance in assuming that he is the only one who knows what the Labour Party view is.

Mr. Skinner: I know what mine is.

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend is saying that it is his view, I would expect it to be as idiosyncratic as usual. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am tired of taking it from my hon. Friend every time he gets up. I really am sick and tired of it, and I am not going to bother with it.
As for what happens in the real world, I do not know how far my hon. Friend is aware of where these arrangements apply, but where they do apply, as they do in a number of cases now, the last thing that the people who have them want is that they should be removed. That, surely, is a piece of evidence that he should take into account.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: There is another statement to follow. We have been half an hour on this one. I shall call three more hon. Members from each side of the House, as long as they ask brief questions.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You rightly said that we had been half an hour on the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. To my knowledge, and I think to your knowledge, Mr. Speaker, it has always been the custom that a statement is not usually allowed to be made by any Minister when the issue is not important or has already been answered, and/or when there are questions on the Order Paper about it. It has also been the custom that Ministers do not agree or disagree with press reports. All that we have had is half an hour for my right hon. Friend to confirm the leaks that were reported in the press on Sunday. This has taken half an hour, but my right hon. Friend has failed to give the salary of the

people concerned and their tax-free expenses.

Mr. Speaker: When the Prime Minister seeks to make a statement it is customary for the Speaker to agree.

Mr. Higgins: The Prime Minister said that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had made a statement to the House on cash limits. Would it not be more accurate to say that he gave a written answer to a convenient question asked by a Labour Back Bencher the day before we rose for the recess, and that he still has not faced the House on this matter? How are we to know that the Commission will take a sufficiently broad view of the economy? Does the Prime Minister still not understand that if productivity increases in one sector of the economy result in higher wages, which are then reflected by comparability increases elsewhere, the effect is bound to be inflationary?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. That is the purpose of these arrangements—to avoid that.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the other bodies that review salaries? In particular, I am thinking of the Top Salaries Review Body. Will he accept that there is a great deal of resentment among ordinary working people when they see such people as judges, top civil servants and generals receiving significant increases, apparently without any effort? Would it not be worth while if, in addition to looking at the wages of, say, manual workers, the Commission had the task of comparing the worth in society of manual workers as against top civil servants?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the Standing Commission will develop, and I believe that it can in a number of these fields, but I do not want to proceed without agreement in this area. As my hon. Friend knows, there are areas in which people are very sensitive about these matters. We must proceed by discussion on them. I hope that in the course of time the Standing Commission will achieve such authority that other groups, which are at present dealt with by ad hoc bodies, will feel that this kind of machinery is more appropriate to their


purpose. If that happens, I shall welcome it.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware that so far this year it would appear that, on average, the public sector is receiving higher rises than are being given, or can be given, in the private sector? Will he make sure that the Commission takes this into account? Unless it does, it will not be up to date.

The Prime Minister: I am sure that those factors will be argued completely in front of the Standing Commission. It is the Commission's responsibility to take all of them into account, as I said in answer to a question much earlier. It depends what year one starts as to whether the public sector is moving ahead faster than the private sector When we are arguing across the Chamber, we always conveniently take the years that suit our argument best. I hope that the Standing Commission will be able to sort out these matters and that it will try to ensure that those in the public sector who refer their cases to it are given fair, comparable conditions for comparable effort under arrangements comparable with those in the private sector. That is its task.

Mr. English: My right hon. Friend will recall that he restored the Civil Service Pay Research Unit and created the Pay Research Board in response to a recommendation of the Expenditure Committee. What will be the relationship between that Board and the Commission? Clearly, it would be, to say the least, unfortunate if there were any difference between the principles adopted by the Pay Research Board for office workers in the Civil Service and those adopted by the Standing Commission for industrial workers in the Civil Service.

The Prime Minister: The Commission is not necessarily related only to industrial workers. I hope that I have not given that impression. It happens that the first four groups referred to it will be what are called industrial workers, but it is not confined to them.
As for the relationship with the Pay Research Board, at present there would be none. Perhaps there could be some overlapping membership in due time, but I repeat what I have said three or four

times already—I am sure that I would raise a mountain of wrath if I said today "And, of course, we shall put everything under this Standing Commission". I can conceive of nothing that would get it off to a worse start.
Let us see how the Commission goes and proceed by persuasion. I believe that we shall be able to make some progress in this area.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Prime Minister said earlier that, inherent in the new arrangements, circularity—by which he explained he meant leapfrogging—would not be allowed to continue. What did he mean by that?

The Prime Minister: I shall try to explain it again. It means that if the public sector were found to be X per cent. behind the private sector, and therefore received X per cent., the private sector should not automatically use that fact, saying "Now we need X per cent. in order to get ahead again." [HON. MEMBERS: "How will the right hon. Gentleman stop it?"] I shall not stop it. That is the purpose of the independent Commission. It is for the Commission to consider these matters and see how far it needs to make adjustments for this purpose.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I thank my right hon. Friend for confirming the press leak that we all read over the weekend. As the professor in question was named, so was his salary, of between £10,000 and £15,000 a year. Will my right hon. Friend confirm or deny that? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is £18,000."] What is the difference to such people? It means nothing. Is it not the case that they all have two or three fingers in the pie and already have such fabulous incomes that they receive tax-free expenses worth, to each one of them, as much as £100 a day? Are they the sort of people who should consider the pay of the low paid? Is it not another case of "jobs for the boys"?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's approach to this matter is not one that I think would be generally shared.
As for the question of how the name of the chairman came to be in the press, it is obvious that if the Government are to ask for a chairman they need to consult various people, and those people can indicate to the press, if they wish to do so,


what they think and who they think to be appropriate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because that is the modern way of doing things. It is not my way. But this is the way in which we all now proceed. Everybody feels that he is entirely tree to say anything he wants at any time about any suggestion put to him. [Interruption.] I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) takes this view. He always says that he reports the meetings of the national executive committee. That is another illustration.
The salary will depend upon the amount of time that the chairman has to put in. There will be a pretty full amount of time put in during the hearing of the first four cases and the assembly of the information. The chairman will not receive this sum, but his salary will be based upon £18,510 for a full year, which is the usual level for a body of this type. How much he is paid will depend upon the number of days in the year that he works.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (AGRICULTURE MINISTERS' MEETING)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): With permission, I should like to make a statement concerning the meeting of the Council of Ministers (Agriculture) in Brussels on 5 and 6 March at which I represented the United Kingdom. I was accompanied by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
The main topic at this meeting was the future treatment of new monetary compensatory amounts—that is, increases in MCAs which might come about as a result of changes in central rates under the proposed European monetary system. The Commission made proposals for the semi-automatic reduction of these MCAs. In so far as they related to positive MCAs—that is, the MCAs of countries with prices above the common price level—these proposals presupposed increases in common prices, so as to avoid any reduction of prices in those countries in terms of their own currencies. This would have prejudiced our resolve to ensure that there are no increases in common prices until structural surpluses are eliminated.

I therefore refused to agree to the proposals unless they were linked with a decision to freeze common prices. In the event, the eight other member countries agreed between themselves to behave as though the proposals were in force. This is a decision for those member States but it has no effect in Community law. It in no way affects our ability to get a sustained freeze of common prices, nor have we accepted the automatic reduction of our own MCAs.
The outcome of this negotiation formed part of a series of agreements by the Council. In particular, the Council agreed in principle to the Commission's proposals for devaluations of various green currencies, including a 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound, which I have supported as in line with the policies set out in the recent White Paper "Farming and the Nation". It was also agreed to introduce a franchise—or reduction—of one percentage point in new positive MCAs when these appeared. It remains to be decided when these various decisions will take effect.
The Council also discussed the proposed co-responsibility levy on milk producers. I made it clear that we could not accept this proposal in its present form, which grossly discriminates against our own efficient dairy industry. I also pressed for an early decision on tariff reductions on imports of new potatoes from Cyprus, and I again urged the Commissioner for Agriculture to bring forward quickly proposals for measures to safeguard the welfare of farm animals in transit. He undertook to do so in the near future.

Mr. Peyton: May I deal first with a matter on which I especially agree with the right hon. Gentleman? Is he aware that the Opposition strongly support his attitude towards the proposed co-responsibility levy? It appears that this would have had a very fierce effect upon our relatively efficient producers whilst being especially tender to the Germans, who have played a very large part in generating the surplus.
The second matter that I should like to deal with concerns the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the other eight had decided to behave as though the rejected proposals for the MCAs had been accepted. What does he, or what do they,


mean? Does this mean that the Commission will not be bound by their decision and that therefore MCAs will be paid as before? I should like the right hon. Gentleman especially to confirm that there is nothing of which the House is unaware behind all this.
Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition are glad that he has supported the 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound, as was heralded in that rather meaningless White Paper of his, "Farming and the Nation"? It was a very vapid affair. I am being as polite as I can. When is this decision to devalue the green pound likely to be implemented, because it is one of very great importance?
Why did not the Minister insist on the right of member States to have control of such a matter, as used to be the case, and to do so as and when they please? Has there been some change of the rules, who has made it, when, and on what authority?

Mr. Silkin: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said about the co-responsibility levy. The scale of exemptions, among a number of other disagreeable suggestions in the Commission's proposals, would have exempted, I reckoned, about one-tenth as many and possibly one-twentieth as many of our farmers as would have been exempted in Germany or France.
As for the so-called gentleman's agreement of the Eight, Mr. Speaker, I think you pay your money and you take your choice. It means that there is an automatic procedure which they enter into optionally. In other words, assuming that the Commission is willing to put a proposal on the table, the Eight can agree—and they say that they have agreed—to reduce their own MCAs in line with the proposals which would have been accepted had this been agreed to by all Nine and put into a regulation. However, I make the point again that such an occasion can arise, according to the Commission's proposals, only if common prices are increased. But it seems to me to be my job to ensure that they are not increased as long as there are structural surpluses. So I hope that the position is totally academic.
As for the 5 per cent. green pound devaluation, I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman finds "Farming and the Nation" so disappointing. However, the point that it made was a very important one, namely, that we should preserve as much right as we could to increase our own production in this country and not to have the production dictated totally by surpluses in other countries. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will come with me at least that far, because it is a very important principle denied by many others.
The 5 per cent. devaluation will come into effect when the regulation which will be prepared as a result of these meetings is passed by the Council. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to hazard a guess. My guess is that it might be resolved on about 26 March when we next meet. It could be resolved earlier. It could be a bit later.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me since when the right of a country to devalue its own currency had been changed or challenged. The answer is simply that custom has always said, up to last year—the right hon. Gentleman may remember a little difference of opinion that we had about a 2½ per cent. devaluation of the green pound at the time and the reaction that it caused in Brussels—that any country which proposed a green currency devaluation would automatically have the Commission making a proposal to that effect. The Commissioner has since said that he did not intend to follow that procedure in future and intended only to introduce proposals for green currency changes at the time of the price fixing. We have at least changed that in this case.

Mr. Peyton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the middle part of his answer about the meaning of the agreement of the Eight to act as though the proposals had not been rejected is convincing in only one respect, and that is that he must be longing for an opportunity afforded by a debate in this House to explain exactly what the position is?

Mr. Silkin: I must say that a common agricultural policy presupposes a common agricultural jargon. However, the point is clear. This could come into effect only if common prices were increased. But common prices will not be increased so


long as there are structural surpluses. That remains the declared policy of this Government.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I must inform the House that there are two applications under Standing Order No. 9 to come. I shall call those hon. Members who have sought already to catch my eye, and then we must move on.

Mr. Hooson: Does not the agreement between the Eight indicate that they have been successful in bypassing the Minister's objection? Could not they do exactly the same by agreement between themselves on the price fixing—that is, that there is to be no rise in Common Market prices? Does not it indicate that we are still in a state of being half in and half out of the Common Market? Does not this need for continued bargaining arise from our failure to have a satisfactory economic performance in other spheres?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. and learned Gentleman is going over a wide range of questions. The relevant point is that it does not have any effect whatever. Secondly, it has no effect on the price fixing because there has to be unanimous agreement to move prices. Prices will remain stabilised in money terms, which means that in real terms, because of inflation even of 3 per cent. to 4 per cent., or whatever was the figure last year, in Germany—the lowest of the Western European countries—it must be a decline.

Mr. Spearing: Many hon. Members will congratulate the Minister on having sustained the approach for automatic devaluation of the MCAs. Will he confirm that if this automatic devaluation had been imposed on this country, farm gate prices would have increased by at least 28 per cent. and perhaps up to 35 per cent. by the time that it was concluded? Can he assure the House that when he uses the words "structural surplus" he is referring not simply to that amount of food in store but to that amount of food which is habitually sold, with high subsidies from the EEC taxpayers, on world markets?

Mr. Silkin: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I can confirm his definition of a structural surplus. About

45 per cent. of the Community's farm budget is spent on export restitutions and 30 per cent. on storage and disposal. We are against both of these. With regard to his first point, it is a mechanism which I regard as unreal, for reasons I have given to the House, for new MCAs, not for existing ones.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will the Minister say something about the effect of his meeting yesterday and the day before on the future of the European monetary system? Did the French and the Germans resolve their differences at this meeting? If not, what is the position?

Mr. Silkin: Of the many duties, some agreeable and some disagreeable, of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the EMS is fortunately not one of them. I could refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to what has appeared on the tape. I understand a communique has just been issued by President Giscard d'Estaing.

Mr. Watt: Every dairy farmer will welcome his statement on the co-responsibility levy, but will the Minister say why he continues to set his face against a semiautomatic reduction in MCAs? Surely he recognises that a 5 per cent. devaluation this year will not in any way compensate Scottish farmers, who saw their income go down by 30 per cent. last year? This kind of devaluation will in no way excite them and get them to increase food from our own resources.

Mr. Silkin: The point of the 5 per cent. green pound devaluation is that it will take effect before the price fixing. Neither I nor the hon. Gentleman can prophesy when that price fixing will come to an end. Others might object to a freezing of common prices that we are determined should take effect. Green pound devaluation, so far as the Government are concerned, will take place in the national interest alone. I was determined to ensure, without prejudice to any other arguments we may have about green pound devaluation, that it was not used as a blackmail weapon against us and it therefore had to take place before the price fixing.

Mr. Torney: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his stand on keeping farm prices as they are, may I say that


I find the part of the statement dealing with MCAs somewhat confusing? Will he explain what this will mean in real terms, particularly its effect on the bacon industry? Because of unfair competition from Denmark caused by the MCAs, this industry has faced a tough position in recent times. Considerable unemployment has been caused.

Mr. Silkin: It will not make any difference to the bacon industry. My hon. Friend mentioned the bacon industry—which is really, I suppose, the Danish bacon industry. What it really means is that if there was a change in the spot value of the Danish kroner, the normal procedure would be for the MCAs also to go up to meet it. It was agreed that, if it went up, the increase in the positive MCAs would be dismantled over two stages at the beginning of the two successive marketing years, but not without an increase in common prices. That was why we had to stop it.

Mr. Emery: A number of us understand the difficulties of the Minister. Some hon. Members want to see Britain in the European monetary system, so getting the benefits of the world reserves of Europe behind our own monetary structure. Will the Minister assure the House that if we entered the European monetary system it would not preclude him in his efforts in negotiations to do away with the structural surplus position, nor would it preclude a sensible continuation of the devaluation of the green pound or the application of MCAs?
Will he accept the support of the West Country for his stand on the co-responsibility levy? Can he give milk farmers, who are obviously thinking of the future, any indication of how he sees the outcome of that problem?

Mr. Silkin: With regard to the question of the EMS, I have frequently made the point in the Council—I think it eventually came to be accepted—that I saw no link between the two. I was dealing with an agricultural problem. From the start, I said that the United Kingdom disapproved of the reservation applied by the French in December because it stopped a lot of important discussions, such as those on the co-responsibility levy, and delayed the proposals. How do I see it in the

future? I will not take this as it is. I can promise that to the hon. Gentleman and his farmers.

Mr. Wm Ross: The differing values of the Irish and United Kingdom green pounds have caused serious difficulties in the past. Can the Minister say by what amount the Irish green pound will now be changed? Will he say what effect he thinks that will have on the problems that already exist? Will he speak to his right hon Friend the Leader of the House, who is sitting beside him, to try to arrange a debate on "Farming and the Nation"?

Mr. Silkin: We have asked for a 5 per cent. devaluation. At the time of our request and, therefore, when the Commission proposal was put on the table, there was a propsal equally for a Republic of Ireland devaluation of 4·3 per cent. I gather that there have been movements, as always, of the two pounds, and these figures, or at least the figure of 4·3 per cent., may not be all that accurate. But the proportion will be much the same. That is the basis. My right hon. Friend has no doubt heard what the hon. Gentleman said about a debate on "Farming and the Nation".

Mr. Corbett: As well as pressing the Commissioner for Agriculture to introduce proposals to improve safeguards for farm animals in transfer, will my right hon. Friend make clear that the critical factor is enforceability and the willingness of the Community and individual nation States to enforce those regulations? Will he say that, unless that is done, he will unilaterally ban the export of live animals for slaughter from this country?

Mr. Silkin: I agree that enforceability is an important point. There is also a time basis that needs to be considered. For various reasons, the distance between the point of production of the animal and the slaughterhouse in this country may be much further than the distance from one country to another on the Continent of Europe. We have to watch that point carefully. The difficulty about a unilateral ban on the export of live animals is that the Government who issued such a ban, as the matter stands at the moment, could be sued in the European Court of Justice. That might not be the most desirable thing to happen. Let us


see whether we can achieve it by other means.

Mr. Fairbairn: Since he is in charge of the agriculture industry, the Minister will I am sure appreciate that the devaluation asked for by the farmers' unions of Scotland and England was 15 per cent. Can he tell us what effect the proposed devaluation will have on the balance of two things which are central to agriculture, and deteriorating—first, the level of debt on each farm unit per acre; secondly, the level of price per product, be it a hundredweight of barley, a head of sheep or a score of pigs, compared to the equivalent price of the fertiliser, seeds or machinery required to produce it? This is a long-term matter and I am not sure whether the Minister will be able to give me an answer now, but will he keep it in mind?

Mr. Silkin: I do not think that it is possible to give an answer now and I doubt whether it would be possible to give an answer which would not vary from day to day for a variety of reasons. Broadly speaking, of course, a 5 per cent. green pound devaluation would be equivalent, I suppose, to an increase of about 6 per cent. in support prices so far as the farmer is concerned, but that is an average figure and once one starts taking an average in farming one is taking the average of many disparate parts of the industry—for example, between the cereals producer and the livestock producer.

Mr. Grocott: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the fact that he was once again in an eight-to-one negotiating position on a stance which no one in the House so far has yet seriously contested is further evidence that our difficulties in Brussels are caused not by any inherent British cussedness but by a fundamental conflict of interest between the Eight and ourselves? To what extent has his negotiating position been undermined by the knowledge that the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) are very anxious, as the other eight countries know, to have a further increase in food prices by a far more substantial devaluation of the green pound?

Mr. Silkin: With great regret, I have to contradict my hon. Friend on those two points—at least on their implications.

First, it was not eight-to-one against us. I have to pay tribute to the enormous help that we received from the Italian agriculture Minister, Mr. Marcora, who backed us all the way. What happened on this very small point was that he was prepared to go with the others because he has a slightly different view from ourselves about automatic dismantling and a somewhat different problem. On the second question, I should like to be able to say that the Opposition make a great deal of nuisance of themselves; but, frankly, no one talks about them in Brussels.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman return his thoughts to the White Paper on agriculture and bear in mind that, especially when compared with the last three White Papers, this is probably the most anaemic White Paper that British agriculture has ever had? Will he look at this again? It is very important that British agriculture should know what this Government want the British farmers to produce, and not enough guidance has been given about future requirements. Other White Papers have done that.

Mr. Silkin: The basis of "Farming and the Nation" was best described by Mr. Richard Butler, the new president of the National Farmers' Union. In the first place, he thought that a marketing inquiry was a good idea. Secondly, he said, in effect, "This is very good if the Government keep to it." That is precisely what the Government are trying to do. They are insisting on it.
On the hon. Gentleman's last question, which related to targets in previous White Papers, I would point out that they were never intended to be targets, as he knows: they were always taken as that, but it is not a good idea to have targets. Just occasionally, for example, there are two droughts in a row. The green pound can intervene, or inflation, and so on. One can say "This is what we believe the net product ought to be over a period." That is precisely what we have done.

Mr. Wiggin: Do the British Government now intend to place on the agenda of the next meeting of the Council of Ministers any matters dealing with food or agriculture?

Mr. Silkin: There will be plenty of matters relating to food and agriculture


on the agenda anyway. The next meeting is on 26 March. I cannot remember a Council for some time where there has not been something along these lines that we or other countries have felt to be urgently necessary at the time.

Mr. Peyton: In view of his characteristically cheap response to his hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott), will the Minister, first, confirm that the Opposition have always been careful not to embarrass him in the difficult negotiations that he has to carry out? Secondly, since he made the point very personal, is he aware that we would much rather not be spoken of as he is spoken of in Brussels?

Mr. Silkin: The second point is a fair point of difference between us. The question is not how one is spoken of but what results one obtains. I know perfectly well what results I need to obtain, and they are extremely good. I am afraid that I do not entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's first point. I am not necessarily talking about the right hon. Gentleman now—I have always found him a courteous and agreeable opponent—but I wish that I had had all the help that he tells me I have had.

Oral Answers to Questions — TIMES NEWSPAPERS LIMITED

Mr. Madden: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
 the threat to the freedom of the press and the loss of employment resulting from the continued closure by management of Times Newspapers Limited publications.
A debate would enable the House to consider a number of crucial issues that have arisen since November, when the newspapers under the control of TNL ceased publication. Those issues would include the question of what value can be placed upon assurances given to the Monopolies Commission, the eligibility rules for unemployment benefit, the effectiveness of the Employment Protection Act, and the regulations concerning redundancy payments.
On Friday, the final dismissal notices to the longest-serving employees of Times Newspapers Ltd. will take effect. That will mean that more than 3,000 employees will have been sacked by that company. That raises another crucial point, which could be considered in more detail in a debate, namely, whether it is correct for a foreign-owned company to own newspapers in this country, to use revenue obtained from North Sea oil exploration to create wholesale unemployment in this country in its newspapers and to try to tear up, as the management of TNL has done, all working agreements that existed before last November with all its employees.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this matter with sympathy. You were good enough, last November, to grant an emergency debate. In the intervening period there have been some initiatives aimed at securing negotiations to obtain a proper working relationship between the management and its employees. Obviously, the basis of any proper negotiations must be the complete reinstatement of all employees who have been dismissed, the workers offering guarantees for uninterrupted publication in return for guarantees from management about security of employment.
It is imperative that the Government take a real initiative this week to try to


secure proper negotiations between management and unions. There is general agreement that if Friday comes with no successful initiative being taken, we face a prolonged crisis of continued non-publication and a protracted dispute, which could escalate throughout the company and into other parts of the British newspaper industry.
Therefore, I urge you, Mr. Speaker, most strongly to consider this matter sympathetically so that at the least Ministers will be enabled to explain to the House what they have done so far and what further efforts they are making to secure proper negotiations. I ask you that bearing in mind that, as has been shown to a great extent over the last week or 10 days, there is a new spirit aimed at securing a working agreement that will enable Times Newspapers once again to be published.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
 the threat to the freedom of the press and the loss of employment resulting from the continued closure by management of Times Newspapers Limited publications.
Before I rule on the matter I remind the hon. Member that I allowed him today to state his case just as widely as I allowed another hon. Member yesterday when exception was taken that a Standing Order No. 9 application had been allowed to go too wide.
It is always difficult to know the exact point at which to interrupt an hon. Member who is seeking to establish his facts. I hope that the hon. Member for Sowerby feels that I did him justice, and that he was able to place his facts properly before the House today.
I am mindful that I granted an emergency debate to discuss the threatened closure of The Times some months ago. I listened with great care to what the hon. Member said, and I have given careful consideration to his representations. However, I have to rule that they do not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES

Mr. Newton: As I notified you this morning, Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
 the failure of Her Majesty's Government to meet their obligations for the repayment of their debts to citizens holding national savings certificates.
In doing so, I refer to a letter that came into my possession this morning. It is a cyclostyled letter sent to a person who had applied for repayment of his national savings certificates and was signed by the director of savings at the savings certificate and SAYE office in Durham. Among other things, it says:
 I am sorry to have to tell you that, because of industrial action which is affecting work procedures, our normal repayment services are subject to an indefinite delay.
I need hardly argue that the matter is specific. Nor do I need to say much to underline its importance. National savings certificates are held by about 7 million people in this country, with an average holding that I calculate to be between £600 and £700. The total outstanding, including accrued interest, is over £5,000 million. The certificates are designed especially to be attractive to small savers, and they are sold on the basis of security, accessibility and, above all, trust in the British Government.
The importance of the matter indicates its urgency. The sale of these certificates is part of the way in which the Government's borrowing requirement is funded. Anything that disturbs the confidence upon which that funding rests requires, I submit, urgent consideration.
For many individual citizens, who may well see their certificates as a liquid asset comparable to deposits in a bank or building society, the failure to make repayments in accordance with expectation could be nearly as serious as institutions such as banks or building societies closing their doors.
In those circumstances I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will give this request your consideration, because it is of


genuine urgency and importance to many people.

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) said, he gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
 the failure of Her Majesty's Government to meet their obligations for the repayment of their debts to citizens holding national savings certificates.
The hon. Member knows that, however important the subject is, it is not for me to say whether it should be debated, but merely whether it should be debated tonight or tomorrow. I listened with great care to the representations that he made, but I have to rule that the matter does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 23 MARCH

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. J. W. Rooker
Mr. Fred Silvester
Mr. Ralph Howell

Later—

Mr. Speaker: I have to explain to the House that I made an error during the ballot. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I deeply regret to have to say it was not the Clerk's fault; it was mine. An hon. Member put his name way back behind everyone else, and I therefore announce that, in place of Mr. Ralph Howell, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg is the third name in the list.

Oral Answers to Questions — FAMILY VIOLENCE (SCOTLAND)

4.48 p.m.

Mr. George Reid: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law of Scotland relating to protection from family violence, by providing for the making of orders excluding a person from the family home; by increasing the power of the court to grant interdicts; by removing the requirement of corroboration in relation to exclusions and interdicts against family violence and breaches of such interdicts; by making breaches of such orders and interdicts a criminal offence; and for purposes connected therewith.
The Family Violence (Scotland) Bill provides a clear legal remedy for thousands of Scotswomen who find themselves trapped in a situation of appalling misery. Subjected to regular beatings, to assaults on their children, to molestation at home or at work, there is little they can do if the house is in their man's name—as it is in the vast majority of Scots cases. They are caught in a cycle of terror, never sure of what he will be like when he comes home, aware that the police can do little and that the law as it stands is slow and cumbersome. And if they quit the family home, they render themselves and their children homeless.
The Bill follows a simple principle. It puts personal rights above property rights. It makes it clear that a woman—or, in a few cases, a man—should be able to live at home without the constant fear of violence.
It is now nearly four years since the Select Committee on violence in marriage recommended that battered women in Scotland should have greater legal protection. The Scottish Law Commission has taken two years to produce a draft memorandum on the subject, and is still considering various views. It is quite wrong that Scotswomen should have to wait so much longer than women in England and Wales to be provided with adequate protection. As with so much reforming legislation, Scotland lags sadly behind.
The Bill brings Scots law closer into line with the South, while benefiting from the experience of how the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act has worked in practice since 1976.
Wife battering is a widespread problem affecting women in all social classes. It


is a crime which takes place behind closed doors and is seldom witnessed, so accurate estimates of the true extent of the problem are admittedly difficult to make. However a research project conducted by Drs. Rebecca and Russell Dobash at Stirling university—covering 34,000 cases of assaults—shows that one-quarter of serious assaults in Scotland are wife assaults and suggests strongly that the reported cases are only the tip of the iceberg. This is not a working-class problem. Women's Aid has given advice and support to the wives of architects, solicitors, consultant psychiatrists, university professors and MPs. [HON. MEMBERS: "MPs?"] Yes, MPs.
The Bill allows a court to make an exclusion order to remove the violent spouse from the family home, and it increases the power of the court to grant interdicts. Such orders and interdicts must be reported to the responsible chief constables. It removes the requirement of corroboration in relation to exclusion orders, interdicts against family violence and breaches of those interdicts. It is a criminal offence to break them, with no discretion on the part of the court. The potentially violent spouse has therefore to think seriously about his position and it is simultaneously much easier for the police to act.
Lastly, in a country with a history of marriage by custom and repute, the Bill extends the same protection to cohabitees who have taken a clear decision to set up a joint home.
Those are the general principles of the Bill. I shall now deal with specific aspects in greater, and more human, detail.
The Bill gives the woman the right to obtain an exclusion order from the court removing her spouse or cohabitee from the home for a period of up to 12 months if it is necessary to protect herself or her children from violence. She would be able to get an interim order if she could show that immediate protection was needed. These provisions would help women such as Mrs. G from Dunfermline, who suffered serious assault for eight years and had to leave home. Because her children have grown up, she is not a housing priority and has to stay in a refuge. Under the Bill, she would have time to seek alternative accommodation or try to have the house transferred to her own name.
The provisions would help Mrs. M from Glasgow, who was thrown on to the street with her baby at two o'clock in the morning, and Mrs. G from Edinburgh, married to a man with strong psychopathic tendencies. She had eventually to escape to London, whereas what she needed was both an exclusion order and an interdict prohibiting him from molesting her. They would help Mrs. L from Falkirk, married to a prosperous man but with no resources of her own. She was a good wife and mother but was so beaten that her hearing today is severely impaired. He gave her one month to get out. Under the Bill, she could have stayed in her home while divorce proceedings were carried out.
The Bill gives further protection by excluding the violent spouse from any specified area. In addition to the home, this might be the stair or close, the street outside, the children's school, her place of work or the home of her relations.
Clause 6 of the Bill allows a woman to obtain an exclusion order or an interdict or to charge her husband with breaching these without having to provide witnesses to his violence. This is a very important change for battered women since by its nature most domestic violence takes place within the home where there are no witnesses. This would help women such as Mrs. H from Clackmannanshire, whose husband regularly, but very quietly, threatened to set fire to the baby and herself with paraffin. It would help Mrs. A from Edinburgh, who got a short period of relief only when a police dog so savaged her boy friend that he had to go to hospital. It would help Mrs. Y from Edinburgh, who, despite the fact that she and her sister were violently assaulted when her man broke down the door, and the doctor who had been called had to escape through the back window, could not get the police to charge the husband.
I appreciate that some Members have written to me about this clause, expressing concern. I say to them that under the present law a judge can be satisfied that a battered woman is telling the truth yet find himself prevented by the law on corroboration from acting accordingly. Because domestic violence takes place in private, this clause is a justified exception, in my view, to the normal view of Scottish criminal law. It has the support


of the Scottish Council on Civil Liberties, and because a breach of order or interdict would become a criminal offence the standard of proof required would be raised from the "balance of probability" to "beyond all reasonable doubt". That, in my view, is a sufficient safeguard.
The fact that breaches of interdict and exclusion orders are automatically criminal offences is of vital importance. The sheriff would have no discretion in the matter, and this approach would avoid the problems encountered in England and Wales, where the judges have often been very reluctant to attach the power of arrest to an injunction. Such powers would allow the police to arrest a woman's husband if they believed that he had breached the order or interdict. They provide for much better protection than the present procedure for enforcing interdicts, which is slow and very ineffectual and leaves many battered women to the conclusion that interdicts are worthless pieces of paper.
Those powers would help Mrs. G from Edinburgh, whose husband tied her up and set her alight but who, despite interdicts, is still coming round mouthing obscenities and threats.
The powers would help Mrs. B from Dunfermline, who, despite getting a flat and an interdict, finds her husband constantly pestering her and the police saying that they cannot help. They would help Mrs. J from Glasgow, who also has an interdict but whose husband climbs up the balconies and through the window and assaults her. Such women need effective protection now.
The general principles of this Bill are clear. They concern personal rights and, above all, the right to protection from violence. That right should take precedence over property rights. The Bill is complete in every respect and has been

professionally drafted by lawyers from Edinburgh university. I trust that hon. Members will look on it with favour, that it will have the support of the Scottish Office, and that the Secretary of State will put his weight behind it.
Battered women in Scotland should not remain in an underprivileged position relative to women south of the border. That, of course, was part of the case for a Scottish Assembly, and with that great debate still going on, alongside other affairs of State, I think that it would be appropriate to conclude with six lines of Robert Burns, who said:
 While Europe's eye is fixed on mighty things
The fate of Empires and the fall of Kings While quacks of State must each produce a plan
And even children lisp the Rights of Man
Amid this mighty fuss, just let me mention
The Rights of Women merit some attention ".

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Reid, Mrs. Margaret Bain, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mrs. Winifred Ewing, Mr. Robert Hughes and Mr. Russell Johnston.

Oral Answers to Questions — FAMILY VIOLENCE (SCOTLAND)

Mr. George Reid accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law of Scotland relating to protection from family violence, by providing for the making of orders excluding a person from the family home; by increasing the power of the court to grant interdicts; by removing the requirement of corroboration in relation to exclusions and interdicts against family violence and breaches of such interdicts; by making breaches of such orders and interdicts a criminal offence; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 March and to be printed. [Bill 103.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (APPROPRIATION)

6.36 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom Pendry): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 19 February, be approved.
This order will be made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 and is the first of the 1979 cycle of orders which will make available the funds required for the services of Northern Ireland Departments.
The order serves to appropriate not only the published spring Supplementary Estimates for 1978–79 but also the sums required on account for 1979–80. These latter sums are intended to keep Northern Ireland Departments in funds until after the 1979–80 main Estimates have been published and Parliament has approved the appropriation of the balance of the funds required.
I should like to deal first with the spring Supplementary Estimates, in which a total additional provision of some £61 million is being sought. This sum, together with the main Estimates provision of £1,299 million, the summer Supplementary Estimates provision of £33 million and the autumn Supplementary Estimates provision of £129 million approved by the House during 1978, brings the total sought for 1978–79 to £1,522 million. The comparable figure for 1977–78 was £1,318 million. The cash limited element of the £1,522 million total is within the approved cash limit for voted expenditure by the Northern Ireland Departments. The sum being sought is also consistent with the approved public expenditure allocations.
The services for which the additional funds now being sought are required are set out in part I of the schedule to this order and more detailed information may be found in the spring Supplementary Estimates volume, copies of which are available to right hon. and hon. Members in the Library. I should, however, like to draw attention to some of the main items in the order.
In class I, vote 3, some £2 million is required for the meat industry employment scheme. The total provision now sought reflects known variations in green exchange rates, fluctuations in the rates of payments and a greater throughput of animals.
Class II, vote 1, which provides for industrial support and regeneration, also shows an additional requirement of £2 million, of which more than half relates to capital expenditure by the local enterprise development unit. This additional sum has become necessary because of an increase in the volume of applications received and in the level of assistance offered. A further £3 million is being sought in class II, vote 5, to assist the functioning of the labour market. Of this, £2 million is required to provide for benefits under the shipbuilding redundancy payments scheme, and £1 million to cater for increased uptake of temporary employment subsidy.
An additional £6 million is being sought for the roads service to cover pay and price increases and an extension of the resurfacing programme for the main road network in Northern Ireland. It is expected that this will help maintain employment in the quarrying section of the construction industry and at the same time help to prolong the life of the roads in question.
A further £3 million will be needed in class IV, vote 2, for expenditure on transport services, mainly for the railway system. Additional track laying by Northern Ireland railways is being carried out as part of an employment package and this, together with increases in the cost of rolling stock, accounts for £2 million of the increased provision being sought on this Vote.
In class VI, vote 1, water and sewerage services, an increase of £3 million is being asked for. This arises primarily from pay and price increases throughout the vote, in particular on new construction for the water services and on the operation and maintenance of both the water and sewerage services.
There is an additional requirement of £8 million in class VIII, vote 4, for grants to the education and library boards. This arises mainly because of pay and price increases and the creation of more

employment opportunities in the education and allied services following the Secretary of State's announcement in March 1978 of additional job creation measures in the public sector.
In class IX, vote 1, an additional provision of £23 million is being sought for expenditure on health and personal social services. This increase is required mainly to meet the pay awards and price increases experienced by the health and social services boards. There has also been some increase in the cost of the hospital building programme, pharmaceutical services, remuneration of medical and dental practitioners, and an increased demand for some services.
The major decreases in the present provision are in class IV, vote 2, where there has been some delay in the development programme for aerodrome undertakings—in class V, vote 1, where payments to housing associations have been less than expected; in class VI, vote 1, where there have been some land acquisition problems and design delays on the provision of sewerage services; and in class VIII, vote 4, where the transfer from the education and library boards to the Department of Education of responsibility for paying grants to voluntary grammar schools has resulted in a reduced requirement.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister has given the House some interesting and important details of underspending. As he is aware, these do not appear in the presented documents. As they are important, I wonder if he might find some way on future occasions, perhaps a day or two beforehand, of circulating the figures he intends to give to hon. Members interested in these matters. One would obviously wish to be aware of them in advance, as is the case with the figures in the Estimates and the order.

Mr. Pendry: I will look into that matter very closely.
I turn now to the sums required on account for 1979–80. As in previous years, these have been calculated on the same basis as that used for United Kingdom Departments—that is, they represent 45 per cent. of the total Estimates provision for the current financial year, except where the expected needs in 1979–80 differ substantially from 1978–79. The total sum sought on account is £663


million and details are provided in part II of the schedule to the draft order.
Those are the principal features of the draft order to which I wish to draw the House's attention. I should, however, like to indicate to hon. Members where matters stand on the important question of energy. The internal review—involving Departments in London as well as Belfast—which the Government have been conducting has been completed. A document setting out the main considerations is now being prepared and will be ready before the Easter Recess. It will, of course, be made available to Members of Parliament as well as being distributed more generally and at that stage there will also be a Government statement in Parliament. The Government will be happy to co-operate in the making of appropriate arrangements for debate through the usual channels.
Although I have covered only the main points of the draft order, I shall, of course, try to answer any questions which right hon. and hon. Members may raise during the debate. If, for any reason, I am unable to do so, I shall note the points and write to the right hon. or hon. Member concerned. I commend this draft order to the House.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: We do not oppose this order. But we are asked to approve very large sums. The Under-Secretary will expect me to ask a number of questions. I support the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in his call for more details beforehand, particularly in cases of underspending. These matters are important to hon. Members concerned with the interests of Northern Ireland.
In the context of this order, I should like to refer briefly to the prospects for the Northern Ireland economy and go on to more detailed matters contained in the various classes. I begin with the report by the central economic service of the Department of Finance to invite a short discussion on the prospects for the Northern Ireland economy. In his foreword to the report, the Secretary of State says:
 While these initiatives—that is attracting American investment and the new job promotions—will have a beneficial impact, there remain serious underlying economic and social problems to which there are no easy solutions.

Since we are approving very large sums, which we do not dispute, we must discuss the matter. I think the Minister will agree that the report itself contains little comfort for the Northern Ireland people. It points to 10·9 per cent. unemployment, to £30·40 supplementary benefit per head of the population and to lower average weekly earnings and labour activity rates than the rest of the United Kingdom.
The third section of the report, entitled "Looking ahead", refers to the forecasts for employment until the 1981 projection. One sees that the change in the construction industry will be a decline of 6,000 jobs, in manufacturing and mining a decline of 9,000 jobs, but an increase in services of 11,000 jobs. Public sector employment is expected to rise by that figure, partly reflecting, according to the report the financial reallocation announced early in 1978. I view this with some anxiety. It seems to show further dependence on the public sector. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will comment on that point. It is of some relevance to what we are discussing.
More important, perhaps, is the fact that no economic strategy for Northern Ireland emerges from the report, nor has it done so during the last two or three years. We on this side and hon. Members in all parts of the House have continually asked what is the overall strategy for the Northern Ireland economy. The Government, in their introduction to this report, simply reaffirm their objectives of economic growth, higher employment, better employment and social progress. No one can dispute that those are worthy objectives. How will they be achieved by policies which have failed elsewhere in the United Kingdom? The Minister must say a little on this matter. The same weaknesses, although not as serious as in Northern Ireland, appear in the north-east of Great Britain. That is referred to in the report of the Central Economic Service.
The Northern Ireland Office is tied, I suppose, to an economic policy that has done little or nothing to increase economic growth in Great Britain, certainly not productivity. Unemployment in the last few years has not been improved by those policies. The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), in an important


speech in our last debate on appropriation on 11 December, said:
 Northern Ireland will have no future if the effort is concentrated on creating enterprises to take in each other's washing."—[Official Report, 11 December 1978; Vol. 960, c. 126.]
I was very much impressed by those remarks. The right hon. Gentleman said that the need was to concentrate on new technologies. I would like to hear the reaction of the Government to those comments. We need a more wide-ranging debate on these matters. They are relevant to this order.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the De Lorean project. We in the Conservative Party have always made clear that special measures of support for industry are needed in Northern Ireland. However, we have always laid stress on the need to choose projects capable of a fair profit in return for United Kingdom taxpayers' contribution. Three weeks ago, I visited the site at Dunmurry of the De Lorean factory and spoke to the staff there. The potential importance to local employment in West Belfast of this scheme for producing high performance sports cars for the American market needs no emphasis from me, but I do not have sufficient knowledge on a number of points. For instance, why is the European market not being surveyed? It is a question I asked during my visit.
The fact that these questions are being asked does not mean that we are knocking the project. The site of the factory is being cleared—it is not reaching completion, as the Minister said in our last debate—and a building certainly has been erected where training is due to begin. Nevertheless, I felt that the executive who spoke to me was a little optimistic in stating that this sports car, designed and in production, would be launched with 1,000 units next year, 1980. That may be so, but the factory is not due to be completed until early 1980.
In our last debate, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), the Under-Secretary gave the figure of
 £28·5 million as grants towards the cost of factory construction, plant, machinery and equipment ".—[Official Report, 11 December 1978; Vol. 960, c. 181.]
The total capital expenditure, including the company's contribution to the factory

construction, is as yet unknown to me. I have been trying to obtain that information from the company.
There is obviously a good deal of information that the House should know. The Conservative Party has therefore invited Mr. De Lorean and his colleagues to a meeting so that we can discuss these matters and brief ourselves. I am glad to say that they have accepted. I am conscious of the employment and social problems of West Belfast, but we need to ask legitimate questions at this stage of the project.
I did not take part in the debate on energy on 11 December, and that is the next subject to which I should like to refer. The Under-Secretary referred to a Government review. When will there be a statement about energy policy, and what is the position with regard to the proposed gas pipeline which was thoroughly discussed on 11 December?
My own feeling is that one of the results of delaying a wider review of energy policy is that the gas industry will be left in a precarious position. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) made it clear in December what the position of the gas industry was. Is the Government's decision to support the Northern Ireland Electricity Service to the tune of £350 million part of their general energy policy? What exactly is that policy in Northern Ireland? We were told at the time that there was too much electricity capacity in the Province—2,025 megawatts—and that many more consumers are therefore required. How do the Government intend to deal with this problem of excess supply?
This could be complicated still further on completion of the remaining units of the Kilroot power station. I must declare an interest in Kilroot since a group of companies in Great Britain of which I am a director has a contract for part of its construction. Kilroot is due to come on stream some time in the early 1980s, I understand, but I should like to hear more about how the crucial question of electricity supply will be handled by the Government and what their total policy is.
The Northern Ireland Economic Council, as we were told in the last debate, wants to spread the load over United Kingdom consumers generally. Northern


Ireland, as we all agree, is part of the United Kingdom. The council wants to do this by the integration of the NIES with the CEGB. It would also like links re-established with the Republic, so that supplies from the Province can be accepted there.
The hon. Member for Armagh reminded the House of this in an interesting speech on 11 December. It would be valuable to know the Government's view of this suggestion about reviving an inter-connector system for electricity supply.
I am conscious of the acute difficulties facing the Government because of the competition among these various fuel interests, but I am sure that many of their problems are caused by the delay in presenting a general energy policy for Northern Ireland. We have been waiting for this for a long time. Some action has to be taken to reconcile those interests in a region where costs, especially of gas and electricity, hit the consumer far harder than they hit consumers in Great Britain.
As usual in these debates, I should like to refer to expenditure by the Department of Education and Science, which comes under class VIII. On 11 December, I said that the Government did not appear to realise the strength of parental feeling in the Province against some of their reorganisation schemes. Since then, I have read a speech by Lord Melchett in Londonderry on 2 March at the INTO conference. That speech seems to show a somewhat less intransigent attitude.
Dealing with the Government's aim of abolishing selection, the noble Lord said, according to the press release:
 The Government set out all the options we could think of in our consultative paper, but we have no fixed views and we have come to no firm decisions.
I was surprised at that after the long controversy on this matter. No doubt the noble Lord was trying indirectly to placate a union which wished to have comprehensive education introduced more rapidly than is being done at the moment, but he said nothing about the views of parents, what the children needed or even the views of teachers at the "chalkface." He referred only to the views of the union, as I understand it.

Over the past few months, the Conservative Party has consulted many people connected with education in Northern Ireland. We find that there is no wish for total reorganisation. The great demand is to leave the good schools alone to prosper. That is our impression from talking to people at various levels in education, including parents and children.
The noble Lord also said that "the Government is committed" to secondary reorganisation. They may be, but the people of Northern Ireland are not; and there is no legislative basis on which it can be imposed on the Province. I repeat this, as I have repeated it several times from this Box. Therefore, the statements which are being made on behalf of the Government are simply bluff.
The Government want their working parties to come up with the right answer I do not know whether they will. The area boards referred to in class VIII have been instructed to produce plans for comprehensive reorganisation. I would therefore remind the House again, first that there is no legal obligation whatever upon the area boards to produce such proposals and, second, that if these proposals are produced they should be carefully costed and we should be fully informed of the results.
The South-Eastern area board has already said that it will not be producing plans for the total reorganisation of its area. Others may do the same. The return of a Conservative Government will put a stop to compulsory reorganisation by ministerial speeches and orations.

Mr. James Kilfedder: As the hon. Gentleman is dealing with assurances about what the next Conservative Government would do, will he assure the House that that Government will end religious segregation in education in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Neave: I will not go as far as that at this stage. I can deal only with compulsory reorganisation, I think. Segregation is a very complicated matter and I should not like to deal with that by giving assurances off the cuff. What I can say is that we shall not have compulsory reorganisation by ministerial statement rather than by legislative action. I hope that we shall create conditions in which


schools will evolve to meet the needs of the children and the wishes of parents. We hope also that a variety of schools will emerge, some of them technical.
Finally, I wish to deal with expenditure on housing services, which comes under class V. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) will also deal with housing services.
We welcome the plans of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to sell 54,000 houses to tenants. That seems to me to recognise the strong attachment of Northern Ireland people to home ownership. That is a point of view that we fully support. The housing council has called for an extension of the executive's present plans, and I hope that where there are no insuperable practical difficulties as many of the executive's tenants as possible will be given the opportunity to buy their own homes.
Many of the regional and district problems that we shall discuss tonight demonstrate the need to make better political progress. They demonstrate the need, too, for a political forum in. Northern Ireland. It is now very necessary for both communities to look afresh with their political representatives at their situations and to begin once again to search for new elected representative institutions. These should exercise powers over many of the areas which form the subject of our debate tonight.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has put forward some pertinent points about education. I wish to add only two questions to those that my hon. Friend posed to the Treasury Bench. They relate to the speech of Lord Melchett to the all-Ireland teachers union and to Lord Melchett's activities. Lord Melchett said that four reports from his working parties are with the printers and will be published
 certainly before the end of this month ".
I should like to know whether we shall have access to copies of these reports and, more important, whether the people of Northern Ireland will be able to comment upon them, and whether those comments will be heeded.

The Education Bill, which covers England and Wales, is now in Committee. It has already been substantially amended, and no doubt further amendments will be made. What recognition does the Northern Ireland Office give to the Bill? Does the Under-Secretary consider that England and Wales legislation has any relevance to Northern Ireland, and is Lord Melchett fully informed of what is going on in England and Wales?
I wish to devote my main remarks to tourism and transport services. This debate takes place on the morrow of the unearthing of a bomb factory of terrible potential. I hope it is not beyond the rules of order for me to say how warmly we wish to congratulate the security forces on their achievement. Terrorism will not be vanquished in Northern Ireland unless loyalists and separatists alike are convinced of the impregnability of the Union which is the democratic will, while it remains the democratic will.
Our fellow subjects in the Province who have suffered so much, so bravely and for so long are naturally prone to fears and to feelings of isolation from the mainland of the kingdom. These feelings and fears mount with every increase in air fares and with every sign of deterioration in transport services between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Economic Council, presided over by Sir Charles Carter, has produced a document containing a statement of views on air passenger services. In the statement the council describes air travel as
 The essential artery of business travel ".
Of course, air travel is also fundamental to a reviving and hopeful tourist trade, which is covered by class 11(1) of the order.
I have raised at Question Time the subject of the high cost of travel between the mainland and Belfast and have had not very informative replies from the Department of Trade. Last month a petition was submitted by the Northern Ireland Council of the European Movement, in which the Rt. Hon. Roy Bradford, formerly the Northern Ireland Minister of Commerce, takes much interest, to the committees on regional policy, regional planning and transport of the European Parliament—I prefer to call it the European Assembly. The petition recalled


that a delegation from the committee visited the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in May 1974. The committee's chairman, Mr. James Hill, reported his concern at the regional problems of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland was compared with Sardinia and Corsica, regions of Italy and France, respectively, where economic development is held back by geographical isolation.
The petition requests a specific subsidy on air fares in order to bring them down on the London-Belfast route. I would not agree with that, at least until I was satisfied that air services were being operated with the fullest efficiency. The Northern Ireland Economic Council, while finding no evidence that British Airways' fares discriminate against the Northern Ireland traveller, yet asserts that
 British Airways cost efficiency is lower, and therefore its fares are higher, than is desirable.
It is no secret that British Airways is overmanned. Moreover, the cowardly decision that air crews should not risk spending the night in a province to which their airline doubtless wishes to attract tourists is costly as well as contemptible, and I have seen mentioned the figure of £750,000 a year.
It is perhaps on the credit side that the airline now gives a number of concessions to particular categories of passenger. The corporation has learned a costly lesson in this, because in 1975–76 it removed fare concessions and in consequence traffic and income declined. As a result, fares were raised to stem the loss, and that meant that, in 1977 some 250,000 passengers were lost to the airline. This experience surely has a bearing on the threatened further increase of fares. So has the fact that the Heathrow-Aldergrove shuttle is now making money, as are British Airways services between Aldergrove and Manchester and Birmingham respectively. Losses are still being made on the services between Belfast and Newcastle, Leeds-Bradford, Bristol and Cardiff. But it is on the London-Belfast service that the Northern Ireland Council of the European Movement wants to bestow a subsidy. The case for that does not seem to me to be made out. It would be interesting, instructive and probably forceful to have the comments of Mr.

Freddie Laker on the request for higher fares and for subsidies.
More competition would be beneficial. Those in this House who travel to and fro share with thousands of our fellow citizens a debt to British Midland Airways, which started to supply an urgent need in 1974. British Midland Airways security checks have been less tiresome than those of British Airways and have not proved less effective, and many of us have found higher standards of comfort and courtesy.
The Northern Ireland Economic Council notes
 with some surprise that a Northern Ireland controlled airline of some dimensions has not emerged in recent years. Certainly the Province would benefit from the expansion of locally based aviation activities. The interests of Northern Ireland would probably be advanced by some guarded degree of freedom and more competition in British civil aviation.
The statement of the Northern Ireland Economic Council and also the petition from the Northern Ireland Council of the European Movement declare that it is high time that there was a direct non-stop service to Europe. Air Anglia, a Norwich-based company, applied last December to the Civil Aviation Authority for an Amsterdam-Belfast service. Last week that application was rejected. However, there seems to be a good case for a day return service, operating morning and evening, which could be of particular benefit to business people. I am not making any comment on the merits of a particular application or a particular company—I am not competent to do that. That is the job of the Civil Aviation Authority.
I wonder how Ulster's voice is made audible to the Civil Aviation Authority? Who is entitled to be recognised as an objector? Who is entitled to appear, from the Northern Ireland standpoint, at public hearings of the Civil Aviation Authority? I am told that the only organisations entitled to attend as objectors are Northern Ireland Railways and the Northern Ireland Airports Authority. They are not exactly disinterested parties.
In this matter the Northern Ireland Economic Council says that it is prepared
 to offer its services as a proponent of the regional interest ".


I wonder whether the Minister has any comment to make about that. The economic council also wants to enlarge the functions of the transport users' consultative committee for the ventilation of travellers' comments on air and related services. I know little or nothing about that committee and I should be glad to have particulars of it from the Under-Secretary of State. There is no mention of the transport users' consultative committee in the Ulster Yearbook.
Much of what I have put forward concerns the Department of Transport. Is there a close liaison between the Northern Ireland Office and the Department of Transport? It is, however, for the Northern Ireland Office to answer to Parliament for aerodromes. I do not share in the general condemnation of Aldergrove. One gets a friendy welcome there, yet many who use Ulster's principal airport speak of overcrowding, insufficient amenities and the security searches. I would hesitate to complain about this last issue, but what exactly is intended for the development of Aldergrove?
I am glad to note that the Northern Ireland Economic Council wants improvements at Eglinton. Schemes are afoot for the development of St. Angelo, with consequences for the tourist trade, for Londonderry and for its hinterland in Donegal. There is surely scope for more fishing parties and others bound for Fermanagh to fly direct to Enniskillen. I hope that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire) will forgive me for mentioning his constituency in his absence. I am sure that Ministers are considering all these ideas, and they will, I trust, be in the closest communication with their colleagues in the Department of Transport.
I make one last reference to tourism. Perhaps the largest single fillip the tourist industry could be given would be the selection of Belfast as the centre for the Commonwealth Games of 1986. According to a survey by the Northern Ireland Sports Council, it would cost £15 million to provide the necessary facilities. Has any estimate been made of the countervailing tourist revenue that the games would attract? Are the Government encouraging or discouraging an application from the Belfast city council? I

understand that a decision must soon be made.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I welcome the Minister's announcement of the early publication of the document on energy policy in Northern Ireland. We welcome even more his announcement that there will be a Government statement, presumably to coincide with the publication of that document. We hope that that Government statement will give a clear indication of the Government's view on the various aspects. I have no doubt that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will return to this point.
I confine my remarks to vote 4D. I shall examine the references in reverse order. We may assume that most of the provision in sub-head D is earmarked for Belfast airport, although the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has referred to two other airports in the west of the Province.
Obviously, an airport is an installation which would be of little use if it existed by itself. Its importance lies in its linkage with other airports. In order to ensure that the sum of approximately £3¼ million is put to the best possible use, we have to satisfy ourselves that the linkage is designed to exploit to the full the facilities proposed for Belfast airport.
We must look first at the influences which tend to restrict the growth of air traffic. It is a mistake to imagine that the volume cannot be increased. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest has said, undoubtedly the first inhibiting influence is the high cost of the fare from Belfast to London. It is a staggering burden for a passenger travelling at his own expense and not on a Government warrant or an expense account. It is no answer for British Airways to say that passengers can shop around and take advantage of standby and excursion fares. The reality is that the need usually coincides with the peak holiday periods. The advantage is consequently reduced because of long delays and hardship, which are increased by the security arrangements. One can be impounded for a whole day as a standby passenger. Once one has checked in, one cannot be released from bondage.
By common consent, the £70 fare was excessive, but now we have the threat—I hope that it is only a threat—of an increase of a further £4. All this is in a year when British Airways is expected to make a profit of £2 million on the Belfast to London route. I am very glad that it is showing a profit; long may it continue. But, in fairness, should not some of the benefit be given back the customer?
The passenger on the Belfast route is entitled to a lower fare than his counterpart on the London-Glasgow or London-Edinburgh service. It would be foreign to my nature, and contrary to the policies of my party, if I were to advocate a subsidy, but it will perhaps encourage the hon. Member for Epping Forest to know that there is already a real and legitimate subsidy in the element of air freight.
I may be mistaken, but I have never yet observed air freight being loaded on a Glasgow or Edinburgh shuttle aircraft, whereas we have all seen air freight—not passenger baggage—being loaded on the Belfast aircraft. I have no doubt that such an air freight service benefits the people of Northern Ireland. I am glad that the capacity is used to the full. However, no one imagines that British Airways provides such a freight service out of the goodness of its heart. The airline ensures that it is well rewarded for that service. Surely passengers are entitled to a reduction in fare because of the delays which are occasioned by the operation of a combined passenger and freight service. Delays have been running at an average of 30 minutes for the past few months.
On a recent flight to Belfast, a frank and truthful captain apologised for the 35 minutes' delay and, for the first time in my hearing, said that the cause was that there had been "a lot of bulky freight to load." I suggest that passengers who are prepared to tolerate with fortitude such delays should be rewarded with a reduction rather than an increase in air fares.
I understand that British Midland Airways has applied for a licence to operate between Belfast and Heathrow. I believe that that application has not yet been granted. For understandable reasons, British Airways is not keen on that proposal. Its reasons might be understandable, but we do not endorse them. British Airways claims that it has won back

passengers to the Heathrow route. It can have won them back only from Gatwick, because Gatwick is less convenient for domestic passengers. Security attitudes at Gatwick might also have an effect.
It is true that British Midland Airways is more flexible in its attitude to security, but the same cannot be said of the police authorities, whoever they might be. It is always difficult to find out who controls them. One has the impression that they regard everyone who sets a foot on or off an aircraft bound for Belfast as a potential terrorist. They do not take much trouble to conceal that attitude, and it should be discouraged.
The Home Secretary gave me an undertaking that this situation would be examined and that improvements would be made. I must be fair to the Home Secretary and Lord Shackleton. Improvements did take place, but there is room for further improvement. I hope that we shall see further improvements soon.
I return to the question of the application by British Midland Airways. British Airways estimates that passenger volume will increase by about 30,000 in the next year. Will those passengers be taken from the Gatwick route? I believe that that is unlikely. Why, then, does British Airways object to a rival on the same route to provide for an increase in the volume of traffic? I believe that that figure of 30,000 is an underestimate. A rival service on the Belfast-Heathrow route would not harm British Airways. But it would certainly benefit Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland should not be expected to remain vulnerable to the huffs and puffs and tantrums of a greatly inflated airways staff at Heathrow. In that respect, Northern Ireland is at a disadvantage compared with Glasgow, for example, where there is an alternative airline, a good road service and an inter-city rail link. Northern Ireland has none of these.
I am convinced that British Airways staff would derive much benefit and satisfaction from the increased efficiency which would result from healthy competition. The experience of my hon. Friends and myself is that things have improved markedly this week. Perhaps events are casting their shadows. I have never before seen the hand baggage being delivered before the passengers are


screened for security and enter the building. It is not uncommon for hand baggage to disappear to a completely different terminal.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Today at Aldergrove airport the passengers were put on to the standby aircraft and the pilot was rushed over from the plane which had just come in so that there would be no delay.

Mr. Molyneaux: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman implies any criticism of the British Airways staff at Aldergrove, because they are responsible for making up the time lost at Heathrow by the speed that they can turn the Tridents round and put them back in the air. The bungling in the operations at Heathrow causes the trouble.
It is infuriating to hear the captain say, as one is over Birmingham, that there is a strong tail wind and that if traffic control is right one can expect to arrive 10 minutes early. Then, having arrived 10 minutes early, one is told that there is a delay because it is not possible to get the steps out to the aircraft. One then sees in the distance a group of British Airways staff—different grades, not to mention different races—holding an animated committee meeting to decide who will bring out the steps.
That does not happen at Aldergrove. When one lands at Aldergrove, all the service vehicles surround the aircraft before the engines are switched off. It might be a good idea if a back-up aircraft were to be filled with Heathrow staff and taken to Aldergrove so that they can see how their chums work there. They would learn much. I hope that this increased alertness and punctuality at Heathrow will be maintained. I hope that the level of efficiency of British Airways staff at Aldergrove will be reached at Heathrow.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest touched upon a delicate subject. I have a reputation for rushing in where angels fear to tread. I hope that we shall soon consider the possibility of establishing another link from Belfast to a convenient railhead in Great Britain. There would be no sense in suggesting a tthird rival to the Belfast-London service. But there is scope for getting people quickly and

cheaply to the mainland where they can be linked with the inter-city rail network.
That is a subject which is dear to the heart of my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It would be a great advantage for people from Northern Ireland to be able to travel to cities on the mainland in the same day. That would not compete with the existing service and in a short time there would be a rapid expansion in that traffic. I hope that this matter will be considered and that assistance will be given when the time comes.
We have a responsibility to examine the security aspect.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the hon. Member recall the speech made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) at Banbridge about different forms of transport between Northern Ireland and Great Britain? Will the right hon. Member for Down, South explain how the discussions with British Rail are proceeding?

Mr. Molyneaux: No, I do not propose to cover that, but I shall use what influence I have with my right hon. Friend and perhaps incite him to deal with the subject if he catches the eye of the Chair later.
I turn now to what might be called aspects of flight security as distinct from ground security. First, I must ask the Minister whether he can give any indication of how long it is proposed to perpetuate the hand baggage farce. At one point in discussions with various Ministers my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South and I felt that we were approaching a solution to the problem of the present system which discriminates against men. We had suggested that the measures could be relaxed to permit business men and others to take on board a document case as distinct from a briefcase, and I think that the sheer logic of our argument on those occasions was beginning to take effect. Unfortunately, however, some faceles security adviser or advisers slammed that door.
We then asked why a slim document case should be considered far more deadly than the bulky handbags carried by women passengers. The answer was startling. It was said that those concerned were not happy about handbags,


but the Government could not have resisted what was called the social outcry which would have resulted from a ban on women's handbags. So there it is. Handbags, it is said, are a menace and defeat the whole object of the exercise, but we have to show that we mean business so we shall take it out on mere men—the hope presumably being that mere men would not object. I have to warn the experts that if they insist on this nonsense, the mere men will not tolerate it much longer and they will not willingly put up with what they now know to be a sham.
Any reasonable person will accept that it is intolerable that the business man should be deprived of documents on which he would otherwise be able to work during a flight, then be deprived of those documents while waiting during what may be a lengthy period on a delayed flight, and then be deprived in the same way at the other end when he seeks, sometimes in vain, to retrieve his belongings on arrival.
It is not clear from the reference to the grant towards security expenses whether that sum includes any of the cost of providing a Trident to fly the British Airways crews to Glasgow. This has already been touched on by the hon. Member for Epping Forest. That operation, I understand, takes place every night. I cannot believe that the British taxpayer, in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland, would willingly foot the bill for about £800,000 a year to provide what can only be termed a "yellow taxi" to rescue crews from imaginary dangers and to take them to safe lodging elsewhere. It is really a monstrosity.
If British Airways is itself meeting the staggering expense, it has a duty and a responsibility to instil some degree of realism into the very few crews—it does not apply to all—who make such ridiculous demands. I feel that it is a reflection on British airmanship, whether military or civil, to insist that perhaps getting on for £1 million should be wasted on arrangements to ensure that aircrews are protected from the minor risks which are faced by all citizens of the United Kingdom, in all parts of the kingdom.
Under vote 4, sub-head D2, a sum is provided for security works. We have no means of telling what is the element of

cost represented by Service men involved in precautions which, in our opinion, are far from sensible and which appear to be designed to inflict the maximum hardship and inconvenience on the public.
I can remember a former Minister repudiating an argument which I had put at a meeting in Belfast when he was surrounded by his advisers. He said "Tut, tut, you cannot have had that kind of delay. It is impossible. You could not have been delayed so long that you missed your flight. It is just not on." I managed to get over that evening and met the Minister in the corridor here the following day. He said "Jim, you were right yesterday. Three of my civil servants got stuck in the checkpoint and did not get here until this morning." I think that he was even more irritated because they had with them a brief with which he was to be equipped for a Committee meeting in the morning. I say at once that it was not the Home Secretary who inspired that comment. I hasten to point out that he was not the culprit.
I wish next to make clear that, quite apart from the inconvenience and hardship as well as all the delay and frustration which is caused, the cul-de-sac concept—for the uninitiated, I should explain that this is the idea of having one entry and exit point for the entire airport—has in my opinion been simply asking for trouble. Thank goodness, the terrorists have been very slow to spot the weakness, but spot it they did last week. They discovered that the entire airport could be sealed off for many hours with only a hoax bomb. No one needs TNT, dynamite or anything else; all that is needed is a cardboard box and a couple of bricks. That does the job.
On this occasion we were lucky, but I am afraid that only a super-optimist would imagine that the operation will not be repeated. In fact, there is another far more serious weakness in the system which, I am thankful to say, the terrorists have not yet spotted, and it is not my intention tonight to help them to identify that loophole.
I come now to what is in terms of air safety a serious aspect of last week's operation. Some time after the alarm was given, it was decided, apparently, to take the obvious step to relieve the traffic which had built up, with a queue some


four or five miles long by then. We had three streams of traffic. There was that intending to enter the airport. There was quite a different stream going roughly from Craigavon to the north of the Province, and yet another stream going to the south of the Province, with containers to the port of Larne. They were all mixed up in a fearful state of chaos.
Someone decided that the situation could be relieved—I do not find fault with the decision—by opening up the blocked-off section of what is known as the Tully Road. This should have been a matter of turning a key in a lock and swinging a heavy barrier aside. But it did not work out that way. Some say that the key was lost. Others say that the key broke in the lock. Others claim that the lock itself was rusted. Whatever the cause, the fact is that a period of 65 minutes elapsed before the fire brigade men could be summoned to use their cutting apparatus to open a way through that security barrier.
Hon. Members ought to be made aware that that barrier and other similar barriers were placed around the airport on the insistence of the airline pilots themselves, apparently on the ground that if the roads were left open someone might be naughty enough to discharge a popgun in the path of an incoming aircraft. As I understand it, on the other hand, air safety regulations are such that aircraft are not permitted to use, and will not use, an airport where the safety coverage and emergency service are not considered to be fully adequate.
Through the Minister, I ask those crews who insisted that the airport should be boxed in whether they are aware that in the event of an accident they would have to take jolly good care to ensure that they crashed on the right side of the barrier—unless, of course, they were prepared to remain in their hot seats for up to 65 minutes until the rescue and fire services could reach them.
The Minister's colleague, the Minister of State who has had responsibility for these matters for some years, will remember that during a conference with the security advisers present I asked for, and received, an undertaking and assurance that in no circumstances would emergency

services be delayed in the event of an accident at Aldergrove.
Very foolishly, I accepted that assurance. I ought to have known from experience that accidents become disasters, because everyone takes for granted the theory rather than the reality. In the face of what I now know, I cannot remain silent. I am duty bound to tell the authorities, the air crews, the airlines and, most of all, the passengers that lives are put at risk every day that we permit the existence of arrangements which were mistakenly thought to provide protection but which are in reality a far greater menace than the risk they were meant to remove.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Initially I wish to address myself to class VIII, vote 3, of the order. You might be tempted to wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the relationship between the discovery of arms this morning in Short Strand, Belfast, class VIII and a magazine produced in the Republic of Ireland. Before too long, I hope to establish that those three items are seriously interrelated.
Some time ago an article was produced in a magazine called "The Crane Bag" which is published in Dublin. It took the form of an interview with Seamus Twomey, who is described in the magazine as
 Army Chief of Staff of the Provisional IRA.
The interview proceeds on a ludicrous basis. There is no attempt to put this murderer on the spot. There is no attempt to induce some kind of shame or remorse. Instead, an opportunity is given for him to ventilate his jaundiced views and perverse objectives. That is bad enough. But the startling fact about this magazine which carried that interview with Seamus Twomey is that it is financed by the Northern Ireland Arts Council.
We have a position when a murderer—a terrorist, a wanted man in part of the United Kingdom—is interviewed and his views are propagated throughout Ireland, North and South, at the expense of the British taxpayer. It is not too difficult to see the relationship between this lunacy and the discovery of arms in Short Strand this morning. What is the point in the


Army and the RUC exercising surveillance over the terrorist bases in Northern Ireland—with notable success as we have heard—when, indirectly, the British Government allow British taxpayers' money to be used to engender support for the IRA and to replenish the resources of the Provisional IRA?
Nothing less than a demand for a surcharge to be levied on all the members of the Northern Ireland Arts Council will eradicate this nonsense to which our Province is exposed, along with the whole of the British nation. Nothing less than a surcharge levied on the members of the Arts Council will show that the British Government will no longer allow such contradictions. I ask the Under-Secretary to raise this matter immediately with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to seek to make the Northern Ireland Arts Council in some way responsible for the financing of that article. I also ask that the Arts Council should be severely censured for its action and that steps should be taken to make sure that never again is United Kingdom money spent in such a ludicrous way.
We believe that the work done by the Army and the RUC will be somewhat tarnished when the people of the Province discover that taxpayers' money is funding such action, with the indirect help of the Government. The Government have time to redeem themselves and they must do so if we are to take seriously their comments about eradicating terrorism and violence in the Province.
I turn now to class IX of the order. Almost everyone who is serious about employment and industry in the Province realises that there is going on there what is called "the double". In other words, people are claiming unemployment benefit although they are working. There is one industry in which this practice is more prevalent than any other. I refer to the construction industry. I ask the Under-Secretary to take seriously the complaints which have been channelled to him through Members of Parliament and interested bodies in the Province. I have conveyed to his noble Friend a number of names. This evening I shall give some further information, submitted by two construction companies in the Province. I shall not name them; that would be stupid. I ask the Minister to take seriously the comments which they

make, and the detailed information contained in the documentation which I shall convey to him later this evening.
Will the Minister tell us what steps the Government intend to take in the near future to remedy this drain on resources? It is bad enough when law-abiding people have to pay debts, which they did not incur, by way of an addition to their electricity bills. It is scandalous that the Government should allow this practice whereby people who are working claim unemployment benefit. We do not believe that this is an isolated matter. We believe that it is far more prevalent than the Northern Ireland Office cares to admit. We ask the Minister to undertake a detailed examination of the problem with a view to eradicating it as quickly as possible.
I refer now to class II. The Minister who is responsible for industry in Northern Ireland is aware of the application by Aghadowey Clay Products for permission to undertake the production of a light aggregate block. Present legislation encourages the production of this type of block. Unfortunately, the people who want to produce this product are finding obstacles placed in their way. I shall not detain the House by rehearsing the details. The Under-Secretary of State will be able to obtain the details from the Department of Commerce.
The Minister assured me during an interview that the process and the project would not be lost to the Province. If that is to be so, one of two things must happen. We must proceed on the basis of the scheme submitted by Aghadowey Clay Products or the Northern Ireland Office must purchase the whole project, including the involved lands and raw materials, and develop the project. In spite of two years of consultation, nothing has happened to date. Again, I ask the Under-Secretary of State to get the Secretary of State to confirm that Aghadowey Clay Products will be allowed to proceed with the appropriate Government grants or that the Northern Ireland Office will purchase the project and develop it in its own way.
It is clear that somebody in the Department of Commerce wants to protect the ordinary brick industry. That is being done in the knowledge that the new building regulations are conducive to the production of the block and that the light


aggregate block is conducive to the new regulations. I do not know why an attempt is being made to protect the brick industry if that is not for political reasons. It is certain that there could be more employment in the near future in an area where employment is not exactly at surfeit level. I know that people in the area, irrespective of their politics and creed, would benefit if the Government would finalise the administrative details of the application from Aghadowey Clay Products.
In Northern Ireland we have witnessed the emergence of an interesting phenomenon known as comprehensive redevelopment areas as distinct from normal or ordinary redevelopment areas. I am told by those who are familiar with the new entity that there are many unforeseen problems. I am concerned about the solution of unforeseen problems, but I am even more concerned about the problems that are obvious, clear and overt, namely, the dreadful conditions of old-age pensioners living in homes that are literally falling around their ears.
In discussion with the Department of the Environment and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, it was discovered that in comprehensive redevelopment area 31, which is the Woodstock Road and Albertbridge Road area, at least three streets repose on an area of land vested by the Department but not owned by the Housing Executive or detailed for redevelopment by the executive.
As the executive acts as an agent for the Department of the Environment, there is no provision for the allocation of money for the short-term rehabilitation of the homes in the area that I have mentioned. We are told that it will be another four years before the streets are involved in any official demolition, although they are falling down of their own accord.
What are we to do for the old-age pensioners who cannot have their homes rehabilitated? The Housing Executive has said that it cannot help. I suggest that the Department purchases or builds mobile homes and moves the old folk in immediately. These folk cannot face two more winters of the sort that we have had this year. The likelihood is that they will have to face four winters before they

are rehabilitated. It would be beyond their endurance to bear even two. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to consider the anomaly that exists in a comprehensive redevelopment area. It could emerge in other such areas.
The Housing Executive has said clearly that it has no provision for the supply of money for short-term rehabilitation. However, the area is not designated for housing in a future programme. The people concerned are caught between two stools. The only solution, as I have said, is for the Department to purchase mobile homes, to place them on land that it owns and to sort out what it will do with the area from which the people come. Let is not make the old people suffer because of unforeseen problems not anticipated by the Department and the executive.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: The order is a document of major significance to Northern Ireland. Within its folds are Estimates involving every aspect of life in Northern Ireland. Included withtin the Estimates are commerce, employment, unemployment, housing, finance. Every aspect of life in Northern Ireland is contained within the order. As we are not to be beaten by the clock, as Northern Ireland Members normally are by one and a half hour debates, surely more Northern Ireland Ministers should be in the Chamber to take part in the debate.
I recognise that it is asking too much for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to answer all the queries that will be raised by myself and other hon. Members. I know that he will tell us that he will give consideration to the matters that we raise and write to us. That is not a satisfactory way of managing debates on Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State should be present for the debate. I believe that all hon. Members from Northern Ireland are present except the abstentionist hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire). We are all concerned about the mould of life in Northern Ireland and what is happening in our constituencies. The occupant of the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), cannot say too much about attendances because there are only three


Conservative Members in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman cannot claim that the Opposition have a great deal of interest in what is happening in Northern Ireland. There are as many Labour Members present as Opposition Members if I am included in the Labour count. I do not know whether I should allow myself to be so included, in view of what has been happening over the past few weeks.
Included in the Estimates is the Ministry of Commerce. It is one of the major Ministries in Northern Ireland. It is responsible for attracting industry to Northern Ireland, the payment of grants and the payment of temporary employment subsidy. It is responsible for training, the regulating of trade practices, and the administration of miscellaneous services. It is responsible for the Department of Manpower Services. Each one of its functions is of paramount interest to all hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. The Ministry is charged with trying to attract industry to the Province and trying to provide the maximum employment that is possible in the circumstances.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland likes to be depicted by all and sundry as one who brought about the economic miracle in Northern Ireland. However, the fact is that since he took over as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland there has been an increase in the unemployment figures of about 12,000. There are 12,000 more unemployed people in Northern Ireland now that when the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland became the Secretary of State for the Home Department. There is nothing to crow about.
On Wednesday I put a series of questions to the Secretary of State. Many of my hon. Friends will not have been surprised by the answers. However, I am certain that many of tonight's absentees will be surprised when they read in Hansard that in North Belfast a man has been signing the unemployment register for 38 years. In my constituency of Belfast, West, a man has been signing the unemployment register for 28 years. In Londonderry a man has been signing it for 20 years. Another man in Strabane has been signing the unemployment register for 28 years. A man in Newry has been signing it for 21 years. Those figures,

dramatic as they may be, do not tell the full extent of the story.
We may try to elicit information as to how many men have been unemployed for periods of between one and 38 years. Those figures will run into thousands. That is why I believe that the Minister of State should be present tonight and say how he intends to try to erase these appalling figures from the spectre of unemployment in Northern Ireland.
On Monday I was told in answer to a question that there were 2,713 people signing the unemployment register quarterly in Northern Ireland. They sign it four times a year. That is a sad commentary on the attitude of the Minister who is in charge of attracting employment or the Minister who is in charge of the Department of Health and Social Security which runs the unemployment offices.
How nerve-racking and soul-destroying it is if a man signs the unemployment register on 1 January and is told to return on 1 March and subsequently on 1 September as he is unemployed and unemployable. That does not happen because he does not want to work. It happens because there is no work available for him to do. That problem should not be cast aside. The disinterest shown tonight should not be tolerated.
To prove what I have just said, there are over 8,000 people in Northern Ireland who are in full-time employment but who are in receipt of family income supplement. They are working for less than they would receive if they were on the dole or in receipt of supplementary benefit. That gives the lie to the suggestion that people will not work because they can obtain more by way of benefits: 8,000 people are now working, and some of them are doing menial jobs for a wage which is less than they would receive if they were signing the unemployment register. I do not think that that is anything to be proud about.
I am disappointed that the Secretary of State is not here. I had discussions with him during the week about an industry in my constituency. Hon. Members from Northern Ireland will be aware of the financial difficulties in which the Peter Pan bakery finds itself. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) was called in for consultation with the Department of Commerce during the week in


view of the threatened redundancies in North Belfast. This is a problem where the spectre of unemployment looms large in each of the 12 constituencies in Northern Ireland.
I referred to the discussions that I had with the Minister of State. I know that he must make a decision soon. I hope that the fact that 500 jobs are at stake in this bakery complex will enable him to realise the enormity of the problem that would be created by 500 more people being thrown on to the dole queues in Northern Ireland.
The Opposition have already referred to the De Lorean car project. From the publicity attaching to this undertaking, we might believe that the unemployment problem in Northern Ireland will be solved at a stroke. We are realistic. We all know that that is not true. If 2,000 people are employed in the De Lorean car project, the employers will not be able to take on the 500 people in the Peter Pan bakeries who are threatened with redundancy, as they will not possess the skills necessary to take up such employment. They will be faced with a future in which people will tot up the years when they will sign the unemployment register in Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State will later move an order in relation to the Government's commitment to Short Brothers and the Harland and Wolff shipyard. For many years we have all known that there were periods when, had it not been for Government assistance, Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers would have closed their doors. However, in view of the social consequences that would have resulted and the spin-off effect that closure of those firms would have on the economic situation and community relations throughout Northern Ireland, the Government found it necessary—I agree with the Government and will continue to support them—to give those industries financial assistance.
However, other industries are affected. I refer to Macrete in North Belfast and to the Peter Pan complex. Any industry faced with a volume of unemployment such as that which I mentioned is entitled to demand Government assistance, given the reality of unemployment and the social consequences which have emanated

from high unemployment in Northern Ireland over these past years.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better to keep these people employed than to pay them large sums of redundancy money and the continued benefits that they must receive when they are unemployed? Would it not be better for the Government to invest money in their employment than in their unemployment?

Mr. Fitt: I agree with every word spoken by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). There have been occasional closures in his own constituency.
I come to the redundancy money paid or promised. Some people will receive more than others. I refer to those who are reaching retirement age. They may think that the receipt of a few thousand pounds of redundancy pay is their only possible chance to have that amount of money in their hands. However, the trade unionists whom I consulted and the employers, who were in consultation with the Minister, myself, Paddy Devlin and the trade unionists, were enthusiastic. Rarely in my political life have I seen such enthusiasm and concern in their endeavours to try to keep this bakery going. If the Minister makes a wrong decision, if he finds that he cannot keep the bakery complex going, that will redound to his eternal discredit—especially as he is a Minister in a Labour Government.
I urge the Minister in charge of commerce in Northern Ireland to take account of the distress and despair that now exist as a result of unemployment. We heard the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) describe, from the Dispatch Box, the bleak employment prospects predicted for the years immediately ahead. It is election year, but I do not believe that the Labour Party will gain any votes in Northern Ireland on this issue. It is, however, a question of conscience and of morality, and I urge the Government not to allow any further increase in the tragic figures of unemployment in Northern Ireland.
I want now to refer to manpower services. This subject is also under the control of the Minister of State responsible for commerce, and there is a direct connection between his Department


and the Fair Employment Agency. I may not on this issue get the support which has been forthcoming so far from Opposition Members, but I know that there are no Opposition Members from Northern Ireland who have any time at all for the Fair Employment Agency. I remember very well that every one of them on the Committee which considered the Fair Employment Bill voted against every line, every word and every sentiment contained in it.
I still believe that the Fair Employment Act was necessary in order to try to create an atmosphere in Northern Ireland in which people would be employed because of merit and not because of either religious or political influence, but I wonder whether that Act is as effective as it should be. Yesterday afternoon I received a report about a seminar which was attended this week by some very distinguished people—none more so than my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. The report mentions that 71 complaints have been made against local authorities in Northern Ireland but that the agency feels that it is not in the public interest to name the authorities against which allegations have been made. That makes no sense at all to me. If there are authorities against which allegations have been made, there is a duty on the agency to say whether those allegations are true or false. People would then be able to make up their own minds as to the effectiveness of the agency.
The report states that the agency has found that three local authorities in Northern Ireland were guilty of allowing discrimination on religious grounds to affect them in the making of appointments. In a rather strange way, Newry council and Mourne council have been found guilty of discrimination which arose because they wanted to prove how liberal they were and for that reason did not appoint the person most qualified for the job but appointed someone else instead.

Rev. Ian Paisley: What about Ballymena?

Mr. Fitt: What action has been taken by the Fair Employment Agency? What action can it take? What action will it threaten to take? I believe that the answer to these questions is "None". If such an agency is in being but is shown to have no teeth and exists only to carry

out a public relations exercise, that should be made clear to everyone.
The report also states that allegations have been made against 46 private firms. I do not know the names of those firms or where they are in business. They may be in the Falls Road. They may be in the Shankill Road. They may be in Ballymena. In fact, I have no doubt that they are. They may be in some part of Down. The Minister, in an answer to me, said also that he did not think that it was in the public interest to name those firms. He could just as easily have told me that there were no allegations against any firms, or that there were allegations against only two firms, or against 23 firms. He could have made up any number he liked and I would have been none the wiser. The important point is that he will not tell me who the firms are or how serious are the allegations against them.
This agency, which is supported by the Minister of State, appears to be absolutely useless. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that if this legislation is as worthless as it appears to be, it is up to him now to amend it and to make it more effective He told me in a recent answer that seven district councils have signed the fair employment declaration and that 10 councils have refused to sign it. What action does my right hon. Friend propose to take against those 10 district councils in Northern reland which have said that they will not sign a declaration stating that they will not engage in discrimination on religious or political grounds?

Mr. John Dunlop: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that when the measure was debated in Committee, all those on the Government side, numbering about eight Members, plus four Tory Members, voted not only to pass the measure but to give it the necessary teeth? In other words, there is the power to bring these companies before the courts. Surely that power is still inherent in the measure, and it is up to the people concerned to use it.

Mr. Fitt: I accept that part of the discussion in Committee was related to that. But I want to pose another question. As I was saying earlier, three councils in Northern Ireland have been found guilty of making appointments on the ground of religious or political favour.


The persons who were appointed are still in the jobs, and there is no provision in the Act for those who were unfairly appointed to be dismissed. The council can be brought before the courts and action taken against it, but the person appointed still remains in the job. That is ridiculous. What happens if a council decides to dispense with that person's services? There would be recourse to all sorts of action in the courts for unfair dismissal. The Secretary of State must look at this part of the Act again.
Twenty private firms in Northern Ireland have refused to sign the fair employment declaration. Most hon. Members know what this declaration is about. It says:
 We hereby give an undertaking that we will not employ our staff on the grounds of religion or politics, and by the same token we will not debar people from our employment on the grounds of religion or politics.
I should have thought that that was the easiest thing in the world to sign. I cannot visualise anyone having a sleepless night over the "terrible" words in the declaration. Yet 20 firms have refused to sign it. That indicates that they are not in favour of the Fair Employment Agency or the Act and that they might want to continue to engage in discrimination—

Mr. Powell: No.

Mr. Fitt: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) says "No", but I think that that is a possible interpretation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is there not a suggestion in the undertaking that in signing the declaration firms could be reflecting on their past record? No discrimination by these companies in the past has been proved, and they think that by signing the declaration they will condemn their past.

Mr. Fitt: If these companies are so sure that they have not engaged in discrimination in the past—I am not saying that all or any of them have done so—why should they not go public and declare it? Why are they afraid? The Fair Employment Agency could say that these 20 firms have refused to sign but they have done so because they find the declaration unnecessary because they have never engaged in discrimination.

Then we would all know whether to believe their protestations.

Mr. Bradford: Is it not possible that the majority of these firms are not prepared to sign the declaration, not because of any qualms about offering work to a person irrespective of his religion or politics but because the Government have manifestly failed to deal with the vital issue of quotas? Although the Government have failed to face up to that question, the Act imposes dreadful and onerous problems of achieving quotas, which are not in the interests of viability or productivity. That is why they are not prepared to accommodate this nonsense.

Mr. Fitt: I understand the reservations—and share them to a certain extent—about a quota system. That is a very bad thing for future prospects in Northern Ireland. To say that a firm must employ so many Catholics and so many Protestants is a recipe for total disaster in the industrial field. I would not support it.
I refer to a matter on which there is some degree of unanimity—the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Department of the Environment. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive is a unique housing authority in the United Kingdom—

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is a dinosaur.

Mr. Fitt: There is nowhere else in the United Kingdom where such a body exists. Councillors do not have any say in it or influence with it. Parliamentary representatives have very little influence with it. Time and time again I have tabled questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment asking him a number of questions about the Housing Executive, only to be told that this is a matter for the Housing Executive. I am not prepared to tolerate that kind of conduct. I am not prepared to accept that cavalier treatment from the Government.
Housing in Northern Ireland, and particularly in the city of Belfast, is a disaster. When the Housing Executive came into being it was a political decision. It did not result from the efficiency or inefficiency of the then existing local authorities in Northern Ireland which were in charge of housing; it resulted from discrimination in allocations. That


is why the Housing Executive came into being and why I supported it. I now regret that decision.
The Housing Executive is a monster which has grown larger every day of every week. It treats political representatives acting in the interest of their electors with total and absolute contempt and provides us with no answers. The House has been asked to support the giving of many millions of pounds to the Housing Executive. But answers by Northern Ireland Ministers are to the effect that
 It is a matter for the Housing Executive.
If it is a matter for the Housing Executive, the executive should provide us with answers.
I have written on behalf of constituents who live in appalling housing conditions. Three months later, I get a reply saying that the Housing Executive is looking into the matter. I used to telephone, but that was even worse. I often waited half an hour to get through, only to be told that the person I wished to speak to was either on a day's leave, at a meeting or sick. Those were the three stock answers. The Housing Executive is always holding meetings. It holds meetings 25 hours out of every day. I do not know what decisions it arrives at, but they are not for the benefit of myself or my constituents.
I received a telephone call at home three or four weeks ago from a political correspondent. I shall not name him—I think that he is in the Press Gallery. He asked if I had heard that the Housing Executive had agreed to sell 54,000 houses. I replied that I had not heard that and asked for the source of his information. He said that he thought that I would have known about it. When I made telephone calls I discovered that no other hon. Members knew. However, a document was sent out by the Housing Executive, supported by the Minister, stating that 54,000 houses were being sold. I telephoned the Housing Executive and asked why I had not been informed and was told "Perhaps we have made a mistake. We will do better next time." That is not the way to treat elected representatives who are deeply concerned about the appalling housing conditions in Northern Ireland and particularly in Belfast.
I have reservations about the sale of those 54,000 houses. I am a Socialist and I do not believe that houses should be

built at public expense and sold as quickly as possible. Before a decision is taken to sell public authority housing, safeguards should be built in to ensure that those who are unable to buy their houses will be entitled to local authority houses it necessary.
I speak with a particular knowledge of housing estates in West and North Belfast. I shall not mention those estates by name because it may spark off religious differences and confrontations, which is the last thing I want. I know people of a certain religion in some estates in North Belfast who, between 1971 and 1974, were intimidated and thus had to leave the estates. I know one woman who was intimidated at the point of a machine gun. She came to my home at two o'clock in the morning, having been intimidated in that way and evicted because of her religion. However, in Northern Ireland we are well aware that intimidation can operate on both sides.
On three or four of those estates the tenants will now have the opportunity to buy their houses. I queried why they have the opportunity and was told that a need was being met in North Belfast and other areas. I inquired how it was determined whether the need was being met. I found that the need of those of one particular religion was being met. A Socialist Government should not accept that.
The Government should be attempting to run their housing policy in Northern Ireland in the hope that this year, next year or some time in the future Catholics and Protestants will be able to live together once more anywhere in Northern Ireland, whether in the Falls, the Shankill, West or North Belfast. Once we start selling houses and saying that Catholics do not want to live in certain areas any more, it will be impossible to achieve that result. I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) knows, as I know, of many Catholics who would be happy to go back to North Belfast if they had the opportunity. They had to leave at a time of very high tension. Once the Government decide that some areas are for Catholics and others are for Protestants, they are surrendering to the forces of despair and conceding that there will be Catholic and Protestant ghettos—a development which has led to the terrible position in which we find ourselves today.
Hon. Members from Northern Ireland agreed in Committee—albeit with reluctance on the part of some hon. Members—to last year's rent order because we believed that some landlords were not getting enough rent from their properties to enable them to keep the houses in a decent state of repair. However, we see every day that landlords have been very quick to jump in and double, treble and even quadruple the rents of tenants who cannot afford to pay increases that are sometimes as dramatic as rises from £1 per week to £5 or £6 a week.
I have had numerous complaints. Tenants are told that they can appeal to a rent ribunal or a rent assessment panel. But these are old houses and old people live in them. Those old people do not have the time or the money to go through the whole business of rent tribunals and assessment panels.
A case was raised with me yesterday of an old person in the Old Park Road in North Belfast who had lived in his house for 35 years and who found that his rent was suddenly increased to £6 a week. He paid the increased rent for five or six weeks but found that he could not continue to do so. He told the agent and added that, anyway, the agent was not carrying out any repairs. All of a sudden, the agent found under his desk an agreement, signed 32 years earlier, providing that the tenant was responsible for repairs. Of course, if the tenant had carried on paying the £6 a week, the agent would not have remembered that he had a copy of that agreement. The rent order was not meant to bring hardship for old people living in such accommodation.
The Department of the Environment has some responsibilities in Northern Ireland, particularly in regard to the standard of lighting. Members of the Belfast city council have unanimously called for a meeting with the Secretary of State for the Environment about the terrible lighting problems throughout Belfast.
I have passed scores of letters to the Department and made scores of telephone calls to officials. The first 15 replies that I received acknowledged my letters and said that they would be dealt with as soon as possible. But what is meant by "as soon as possible"? Am I expected to wait until 1986? Every public representative

in Northern Ireland has been getting such replies time and again.
At the end, one of my constituents sent me back all the replies that I had sent him over the years. They acknowledged his complaint about bad lighting and said "We shall do what we can as soon as possible." I sent them all to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, saying "Those are the replies I have sent to my constituent. Do what you can with them now". He told me that he had a problem because the matter did not affect only my constituent. He said "I cannot look at such a general complaint. The bad lighting affects everyone else". That is the sort of stone wall that one finds everywhere in Northern Ireland.
Yesterday morning, before I left to come here, I went to a new estate in Roden Street, which is a year to a year and a half old. I met the tenants' association, which had an agenda stating that there was only one light in Roden Street and that there was none in Distillery Street. It also said that the sewerage was bad. One would have thought that with their experience of sewerage in Turf Lodge, where a few months ago there was hysteria about a possible outbreak of dysentery—two children were taken to hospital—the Government would have taken steps to ensure that that did not happen on another estate.
There were other complaints on the agenda. We all know that on every new housing estate there are teething problems. I told the association that I would try to raise the matter with the Minister. In view of his answers to me yesterday, I think that he will tell me today that it is a matter for the Housing Executive. I repeat that it is not. It is a matter for the Minister. If he wants to continue with his cavalier attitude, he will find himself in serious trouble, not only in the House but on the streets of Northern Ireland. He will not be so well received when he goes around on his community relations exercises.
Who is responsible for lighting? There is another rumour circulating around Belfast that the fault is not of the Department of Environment but of the Army and the police, who say that the lights cannot go on because there may be a shooting incident and the security forces may be at stake. I do not know


whether that is true. If it is, it would be understandable, though regrettable, if certain lights were put out in certain highly dangerous districts. However, I do not believe that it is true. I believe that it is the gross inefficiency of the Department of the Environment that has led to the present situation.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I have been listening intently to what my hon. Friend has been saying. What he has said so far about the Housing Executive and the Department of the Environment makes it seem to those of us on the Labour Benches who take an interest in Northern Ireland that the fault is the result of direct rule, of the move towards integration. Northern Ireland is being administered by people who, to judge from what my hon. Friend says—and there is no reason to doubt that he is telling the truth—do not understand the situation of the place. It would be far better if another form of governmental structure, such as devolution, were evolved for the Six Counties in place of the inefficient, ill-informed direct rule that exists now.

Mr. Fitt: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I did not agree with the old Stormont, but at least under Stormont we did not have to wait three or four weeks for an answer. There were Ministers there who would answer before that. I am not advocating a return of Stormont, which would suit Ulster Unionist Members. Far be it for me to advocate that. I am criticising the inefficiency of the Department of the Environment.
I turn to the question of the selling of the 54,000 houses. I hope that the Minister responsible enters the Chamber before I end this speech. When he met me in the corridors, he said "I believe that you do not like the selling of the 54,000 houses." I replied "That is quite right. I do not like it at all. I have many reservations." He replied" You do not know much about housing in Northern Ireland. "I can tell the House that I know a hell of a lot more about it than he does—in any part of Northern Ireland. Again, that type of arrogant attitude towards Northern Ireland Members will result in a response which he did not think he would get.
Hon. Members will be aware of the great scare that there was recently in Turf Lodge. They may know that a firm of consultant architects was called in to look at the flats in Turf Lodge. The architects have reported that those flats should be demolished. They say that in the interests of the health of everyone in those flats and in the surrounding areas. I say now to my hon. Friend that those flats should be demolished. I also say that the flats lying vacant at the foot of Peter's Hill and at Ballysillan should also be demolished. They are an eyesore, and some of them should never have been built in the first place.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I must apologise to my hon. Friend for not being here for the beginning of his speech. Do I understand that neither my hon. Friend nor right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite knew about the sale of these 54,000 houses? I assure him that, because there is direct rule, we over here ought to know as well, but not one of us knew either. Therefore, literally no one knew except the Housing Executive. Is that the position?

Mr. Fitt: I shall repeat what the position is for the benefit of my hon. Friend. I received a telephone call from a journalist who asked me whether I had any comment to make on the proposal to sell 54,000 houses. I said that I had not heard about it. He said "We have heard about it through a statement issued by the Housing Executive." It is not right that such a cavalier attitude should be taken by the Housing Executive.
What is more, if my hon. Friend cares to go to the Vote Office he will be able to obtain copies of answers to questions of mine. I put down a series of questions to the Secretary of State asking how many houses the Housing Executive had sold, how many it intended to sell, what was the justification for selling them, and what was the highest bid for them. To each question the answer was that I should ask the Housing Executive. I do not think that any hon. Member will tolerate that sort of treatment from the Minister for very long. I will not ask the Housing Executive. This House votes millions of pounds every year to keep the Housing Executive in being. If I want to ask questions, I shall ask them on the Floor of this House.
I ask my hon. Friend, therefore, whether he intends at the earliest possible opportunity to pull down the flats in Turf Lodge which have caused so much alarm, despondency, despair and ill health. I warn him that any attempt to hold them up will meet with the stiffest opposition from the people in that area.

Mr. Stallard: That is a matter for the Housing Executive.

Mr. Fitt: I have no doubt that that is what I shall be told.
I move on to class IX of the Estimates, which deals with health and social services. The House will remember that last year there was absolute unanimity, especially amongst Northern Ireland Members, when the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act went on to the statute book. However, I am not sure that that Act has been implemented fully as yet. We may be told that we have not the resources yet and that economic considerations will not allow us to implement what is contained in that Act. However, that Act spelt out clearly the absolute minimum that should be given to chronically sick and disabled persons in Northern Ireland, and no excuse will satisfy me or any other hon. Member from Northern Ireland that people in that category should be less well off than similar people in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Next I come to class XI, which concerns the Department of Finance. We have been told repeatedly from the Dispatch Box by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there is a corpus of law building up in relation to Northern Ireland and that, to use the words of Jack Lynch in the Republic, there is not a scintilla of evidence that integration is coming about. I accept that. I therefore accept the fact that the Ministry of Finance is responsible for public relations documents issued from the Northern Ireland Office. I agree that publicity is needed from the Northern Ireland Office because I watched my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on "Panorama" a fortnight ago when he was asked a series of questions by two well-known journalists. He got through 55 minutes without mentioning Northern Ireland. It was as if Northern Ireland was away in the Moon, somewhere in the Sea of Tranquility.

He did not even know where it was.

Mr. Flannery: He did not mention Socialism eilther.

Mr. Fitt: I agree with my hon. Friend.
I would like to refer to what has been said from the Opposition Front Bench about De Lorean. I received a telephone call from a journalist on the Belfast Telegraph who asked if I had seen a document called "Protecting Human Rights in Northern Ireland". I replied that I had not and asked what it was about. The journalist told me that I was quoted in it. If anyone wants to see how the English language can be abused, let him look at a paragraph in that document which speaks of special steps to protect the citizens and goes on to refer to the emergency powers legislation in Northern Ireland. If that legislation is designed to protect the citizen, I do not know what the English language means.
The document talks about the Fair Employment Agency. I have illustrated how ineffective that agency is. The document also states that the Incitement to Hatred Act 1970 imposed penalties for incitement to hatred and for the circulation of certain false statements and false reports. That is going out to British embassies all over the world to prove how good an operator my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is. What it does not say is that the Act was put on the Statute Book in 1970. One man was charged under it in 1971. It was found that the Act was absolutely useless.
The Act means nothing. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights represented that to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and asked him to repeal the Act. There was one prosecution and that person was acquitted because the Act was so loose. Nobody was prosecuted under it in the years from 1972 to 1979, but in 1979 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland sends out this document to embassies all over the world to prove how effective is legislation in the matter of protecting human rights in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State then goes on to talk about policing and how good and


effective is the police authority in Northern Ireland. For different reasons, hon. Members on the other side of the House—

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Act to which the hon. Gentleman refers was a Stormont Act. Both the hon. Gentleman and myself took part in the debate on it.

Mr. Fitt: It was a Stormont Act of Parliament. I voted for it, but it did not work.
The Secretary of State also said that the police authority had been set up as if it was the greatest institution ever for maintaining law and order. Bat the police authority in Northern Ireland is absolutely useless. It has done nothing. Only two or three weeks ago, a well-known and respected local authority member, Councillor Jack Hassard, resigned from it because he had brought up a complaint two years before which the authority said that it would look into. Going to the police authority is like getting a reply from the Housing Executive.
Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State what he intends to do about the Bennett report, which has been on his desk for the past fortnight? That committee was set up to question the methods of RUC interrogation. The sooner that its report is published, the better. He is very good at publishing documents like the paper that I have been quoting.
The end of this document deals with unemployment and the bringing of De Lorean to West Belfast. Since that factory was announced, it has been talked of as though it was going to achieve everything. The document gives a good, big quote from what I said at a reception for the opening of De Lorean. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) has rightly written to the Prime Minister to say "In no circumstances use quotes from some of the speeches that have been made." I agree that the kind of speeches that he makes on 12 July platforms and to masonic lodges could not be used to justify a document like that.
I carried this document around and showed it to people, including a member of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. I do not need to tell

the Minister something that he knows already, but the commission has already told the Secretary of State that its remit is useless and should be widened. The sooner the statute under which the commission acts is widened, the better.
Thus, when I was objecting to that document, so was the commission. It was interested not in the back page, which referred to me, but in the little bit that referred to its activities. Some of its members rang up the Northern Ireland Office and said "You are making a big mistake. You say that we are entitled to do things that we cannot do." The answer was "We are awfully sorry. We shall issue another document." I have the two documents here. But in the meantime the first document was away out to the British Embassy in Washington.

Mr. William Craig: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Members of Parliament have a human right, too? Should we not allow as many hon. Members as possible to take part in the debate? That is a crucial human right in the operation of democracy.

Mr. Fitt: This is an opportunity for a major debate on Northern Ireland, yet there is only one Minister here and I know that he will not find it offensive if I say that he is a very junior Minister. At the end of the debate, when he will not reply to me at all, he will say to everybody else "I will take note of that: I will send you a letter; I will look into that." That is not the way to conduct a debate such as this. The Ministers responsible for these agencies should be here. They should not treat Northern Ireland representatives with such contempt and disdain. I hope that the matters that I have raised will cause the Minister some concern when he studies the report of my speech.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. William Craig: I shall do my best to contain my remarks, but there are certain important matters that I should like to highlight, and I hope that I shall be forgiven for turning again to the question of employment in Northern Ireland. I was glad that the subject was so forcefully highlighted by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave).
It is no exaggeration to say that it all the temporary aids and props were removed from Northern Ireland, unemployment would approach 17 or 20 per cent. It is a difficult time for the promotion of economic development in any part of the United Kingdom, or, for that matter, the Western world, but it would be prudent to make the best use of the resources available. Those resources are not being deployed as one would like. Northern Ireland has many disadvantages and we have to ensure that we make it as attractive as we can. The infrastructure of the Province and communications to and from it are critical. I was glad that so many of my hon. Friends highlighted the deficiencies of the air services.
I am concerned about the infrastructure generally. There is a very good case to be made for cutting public expenditure, but public expenditure on improving the infrastructure is probably the most justifiable expenditure of all. I give credit to Northern Ireland Ministers for what they have tried to do to improve the appearance of the city of Belfast. However, that operation is only a facelift. There is no overall strategy to recreate Belfast as the magnet for industry in Northern Ireland. Yet it is an urban area with enormous potential.
I refer, for example, to the Belfast harbour estate. I can think of no other area in the United Kingdom with so much to offer industry for development as an industrial estate. There are deep water facilities, an airport and reasonable road communications, although there are deficiencies with the roads. I am not aware of any plans for the sensible development of that estate, however, and that is a sad omission, given that we must accept that the shipbuilding industry must play a reduced role in Belfast.
I hope that Ministers will coin a new slogan for Belfast, and I refer to the city in terms not just of the interests of the citizens of Belfast but of the citizens of the whole of Northern Ireland. The city should be told to do an about-turn and face the river, not put its back to it. The river has so much to offer, and the harbour estate is a good place to begin.
The airfield, which is of great importance to Short Brothers, is surely capable of playing a bigger role than merely servicing

one industry. I should like that possibility to be examined urgently. There are few cities with an airport virtually in the middle.
I draw the Minister's attention to some needless deficiencies. There is dissatisfaction among the workers in the aircraft industry about road access and congestion. That may seem petty but I make my plea on a wider issue. It is ridiculous that with all the important facilities located at that end of the harbour estate there is only one major access road to it. I shall not dwell on the security aspect.
The representations that have been made have never brought any worthwhile response, and yet the Department of the Environment is building an outer ring road, which causes upset in a residential part of my constituency known as Hawthornden Road, which was once the Vanguard headquarters. That area is being disturbed by the building of this outer ring road. But there are no plans to link that road with the harbour estate which draws workers from all parts of Belfast and many parts of Northern Ireland. Yet there is a huge area of reclaimed land known as Kinnegar that would lend itself to a new road into that estate connecting it with the outer ring road.
Belfast, if it is given the infrastructure of a modern city, will be able to boost the economy not only of the city but of Northern Ireland as a whole. I urge the Government to put aside this bit and piece approach. One of the weaknesses is the centralisation of functions within the Northern Ireland Office without any effective channel of communication between that Office and the public. It is crazy that the Housing Executive is virtually an authoritarian body which decides where and how houses should be built. If one is planning an urban area, there should be an overall pattern. It is not for the Housing Executive alone to decide whether there is a housing need in a particular spot. It must take into consideration the employment opportunities and how they can assist the growth of an urban area.
The same is true of planning organisations. Planning is not simply a matter of telling citizens that they cannot do something. Planning should be the business of telling people where they can best do something and where public resources


are being deployed to the advantage of the citizens. Planning should be a positive, not a negative, process. The planning service in Northern Ireland is deplorable. One wonders whether it is worth advising one's constituents to go through the appeal process. I do not envy the task of those who have to administer the planning set-up when no one really knows what should be done and how it should be done.
There is, therefore, a good case for the Government to re-think. To help them with that re-think, I suggest that they call in outside consultants. I suggest that they call in independent people who will take an honest, fresh look at the problems. Without disrespect, I sometimes think that when a departmental committee examines a problem it averts its eyes from those areas where it may not be so sure that it has done all that well. I should like to see a searchlight applied to the policies which have existed in Northern Ireland, particularly in Belfast, in recent years.
My views about the road system are well known. Roads are a valuable investment. I am a little alarmed at what seems to be penny-pinching. The roads are not being properly maintained. A valuable investment has been put at risk because of slack maintenance. Can the Minister give the cost of putting right the ravages of the severe winter? These ravages were unnecessarily severe because the roads were not maintained properly.
In addition to prejudicing a valuable investment, we must consider the safety factor. We hear much from Government Ministers and their minions about the terrible tragedies on our roads. I agree that something must be done, but I am a great believer in setting an example. The Government could do much more to make our roads safer by improved lighting.
With a little more effort from the Department of the Environment's drainage division, I should not need to possess a hybrid between a boat and a motor car. The amount of water lying on Northern Ireland roads is outrageous. Somebody is falling down on the job. Bad drainage is one of the conditions which has made the ravages of the winter more expensive than they should be.
The Government reorganised and centralised local government in Northern

Ireland and the care of roads was given to one Department. The effective system operated by county councils which acted as agents for the Government in the trunk road system was destroyed. It is time that we put right the mistakes that were made, often because of expediency.
I wish to give the House an example of the arrogance displayed by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt).

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The right hon. Member talks about the arrogance of the hon. Member for Belfast. West (Mr. Fitt). I have listened carefully to the argument and it is clear that the hon. Member is making a strong case for the mother State intervening and using taxpayers' money to build up the infrastructure. He has argued that this should be done in certain technical ways. But he refuses to accept the Opposition Front Bench argument that we can roll back the State and allow the private sector to intervene.
The right hon. Member has not given the impression that he thinks that the private sector has much of a role to play, or that the market forces can be left to resolve the problems of infrastructure in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Craig: If I had more time, I could put the hon. Member's mind at rest. The private sector has an enormous role to play, just as the public sector has. But this evening we are dealing with the public sector and the cost of financing the infrastructure. That is why I have concentrated my remarks on that matter.
We have heard from many hon. Members of the irritation and the seeming arrogance of Departments at Stormont. I declare an interest. I keep a boat in Lough Erne. I was a solicitor for the Erne Chartered Boat Association and I defended it when summonses were instituted by the Northern Ireland Department. All this arose because the Minister's Department, as navigation authority for the waterway of Lough Erne, decided to introduce new regulations, introducing them in such a way as to alienate the entire membership of the hire boat association to such an extent that they ignored the new regulations and had to be prosecuted.
The prosecution failed because of lack of proof, and the lack of proof really


arose out of the impossibility of the regulations. If the Department were to try to enforce those regulations, it would destroy a valuable tourist trade centring on the waterways because wardens would have to harass tourists who hire boats for holidays and bring them back to tender evidence.
The problem is that the Department in its wisdom, as navigation authority, decided that for the safe use of the waterway there must be two standards of navigation regulation—one for the boats which are privately owned, by people such as myself, with quite minimum requirements, and the other for boats used by people paying a rent, a sort of hire car operation. These latter boats must be subject to a totally different and very onerous set of regulations.
The Department attempts to justify these regulations by saying that, since a profit is being made out of the boats, it is right that there should be a higher standard. But there is no other waterway in the United Kingdom, with the possible exception of Lake Windermere—though I think that the Department's information is not all that accurate here—to which such regulations apply. For no other waterway in the United Kingdom or, indeed, in the Irish Republic, with its major waterway, the Shannon, have two sets of regulations been adopted.
As a result of this high-handed way of doing things, a decent body of men who are making a major contribution to the tourist trade of Northern Ireland now find themselves in defiance, just refusing to register their boats, although in fact all their boats are already up to the standards on which the Department insists.
I appeal to the Minister to re-examine this case. It was raised with his predecessor and very little satisfaction was given. I do not expect that I shall be involved with it much longer—I hope not—but I can tell the Minister that one of the most valuable sections of our tourist trade is in revolt and intends to continue to defy the regulations. This need never have happened. It was an example of arrogance.
There is a lot of money represented in these matters, and that money is capable of doing a lot of good. If it is to do the maximum good, it must enlist the co-operation

of all the people and bring the involvement of all the people. It is not for a few experts sitting in plush seats round expensive tables to tell us how best we should run our country.

9.14 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: As the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) rightly said, this debate is important for the people of Northern Ireland and the affairs of our Province, and it is to be regretted that only a junior Minister is present to reply.
Of course, we could not have the Minister responsible for two of the most important Departments, the Department of Education and the Department of Health, because he sits in another place. Never once has a Member from Northern Ireland or, indeed, any other Member of the House had the opportunity of really probing what is happening in those two Departments, for the simple reason that the person responsible is not answerable in the House of Commons and someone else is briefed to answer. I recall an earlier occasion when the Minister of State answered and his answer was not even in accordance with the facts of the situation in the hospital service in Northern Ireland.
Here we have two important Departments which are to undergo changes and yet never once have we had the opportunity of receiving from a responsible Minister responsible answers to the questions agitating the public. That is a serious situation and it is growing more serious daily. I agree with the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), who intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West to ask whether it would be better if there were a form of devolved government in Northern Ireland. Of course it would be better. That is an aim to which I am dedicated. What we are discussing is the direct results of direct rule. They will continue, no matter how perfect we seek to make a system of direct rule.
The terrible spectre of unemployment concerns every Member representing a Northern Ireland seat. We have had our difficulties with terrorism. Here I join in the congratulations which have already been expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) concerning the effective surveillance of the IRA by


the security forces which has resulted in the discovery of a large number of bombs. I am informed by the police that they were intended for a blitz on the dock areas of Belfast this weekend. I am delighted that the security forces have been able to prevent that terrible event.
In our city we have, in addition to the shadow of terrorism, the creeping shadow of unemployment, which is entering the homes of those living in the Province. Unemployment has a dreadful effect upon a man and upon his household. It is particularly bad when it reaches the stage outlined by the hon. Member for Belfast, West when a person has to sign on at the labour exchange and is told not to come back for three months, when the process is repeated. The only future that person has is four visits to the dole each year. We are greatly concerned about that.
The Government must be prepared to give more help to existing industry in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the Government's policy appears to be to look further afield. New companies entering Northern Ireland are given liberal grants and loans. I am approached by employers who have been operating viable industry in Northern Ireland for years and who say "We have a cash flow difficulty. Why cannot we be treated in the same way as new companies coming here?" There is a terrible tendency to run down companies and eventually to close them so that when they are reopened fresh grants will be available.
This type of exercise is being carried out with the firm of Macrete. My information is that one part of that firm is viable and could be sold at a profit but everyone is holding off. People do not want to purchase until the business is no longer viable. Then it will be sold out cheaply and the new owners will get fresh Government grants for bringing in what will be a new industry.
I am informed by the Department that it is not able to say to the receiver "We are prepared to help you to keep the company viable until a purchaser arrives who will pay a proper price for the viability of the company." If the Department says that it is unable to help, is the company to be run down and sold for buttons? It could be that there are those in the company with an interest who would like to see that happen. It could

be that at least one person in the company would like to see the company run down as that would be to his financial advantage. The Minister needs to consider the matter with all haste and seriousness.
Why should a viable company that has already received large Government grants be allowed to run down so that someone may buy it cheaply and obtain all the fresh grants that would be made available in restarting the company? I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) will want to say something more about that.
I direct my remarks to unemployment and the gas industry. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) will want to enlarge on the subject. My hon. Friend has stated that he feels from his information that Northern Ireland will not get the pipeline for natural gas. If that is so, we have an industry that is going further and further over the edge. Why could not a decision have been taken months ago? Why could not we have been told months ago? Why should we have a permanent creeping shadow? If we are to save jobs, let us save them. If it is felt that jobs cannot be saved, let us try to get employed in other companies those who will be made unemployed. The Government need to reconsider the whole situation.
I have asked the Prime Minister to call elected representatives of all shades from Northern Ireland around the table to let the people of Northern Ireland know that he is concerned about unemployment in the Province. We are dealing with something that is eating the vitals out of our community.
The days ahead will be dark and grave for employment in Northern Ireland. We all know what happens to the unemployed. There is demoralisation in the home and family and throughout manhood and womanhood. I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West to say that it would be far better for the Government to invest in the employed than the unemployed. It would be better to keep certain places of business in operation than to pay large redundancy payments and large social benefits.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I think that you will agree that Northern Ireland Members have argued for vast sums of public expenditure to be directed to the Northern Ireland infrastructure. You yourself have argued for considerable sums to be invested in industry that is already in Northern Ireland. Do you not think that if we are to do that with taxpayers' money there must be some public accountability? Do you not agree that the taxpayers should have at least part ownership of the industries and firms that are the beneficiaries of public expenditure, if only to stop the asset stripping to which you referred?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) kept referring to me, and I am completely innocent in the matter.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not wish to enter into any argument with the hon. Gentleman. If we can save asset stripping by the Government having part ownership of companies in receipt of public moneys, all well and good. I should have no opposition to that. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman—it may be that it is in his mind—that some public expenditure in Northern Ireland has been a sheer waste. Large sums have been spent on elaborate recreation centres in cities when smaller centres would have met the needs of the people. A vast local complex was built costing millions of pounds. The money spent on that complex should have been spent on creating employment.
The Government should look carefully at where they put their money in Northern Ireland. I do not care whether the expenditure is borne by the Belfast council. It still comes out of the public purse. When the Belfast council asks for money for this purpose, the Government should refuse. Instead, people should be employed. Employment should come first, and other projects afterwards.
Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West, I believe more and more in conversion. He said that when he thought about the Housing Executive and his opposition to the local councils' control over housing, he had come to believe that it would be better if the local councils had held on to that control.

Mr. Fitt: Mr. Fitt rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall give way later. I do not want to misrepresent what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that, looking at the record of the Housing Executive, he had come to think again about his attitude to the previous method of housing management under the local councils.

Mr. Fitt: That is a most important subject in Northern Ireland. I said that the Housing Executive was brought into being for political reasons as previously there had been allegations about wrong methods being used by local authorities throughout Northern Ireland. I agreed with the setting up of the Housing Executive. I now regret having done so. That is the most grossly inefficient organisation in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: That makes the case stronger. I welcome that remark. I do not agree that the wild allegations of discrimination were ever justified. I debated the legislation with the hon. Gentleman in Stormont until the small hours. The hon. Gentleman thought that the legislation would be wonderful. I disagreed. Now he tells us at this late hour of his conversion that it is not wonderful. In that case we should not have wasted our time. We do not remedy such situations by legislation. We must produce remedies by going forward and getting people employed. If people are employed and well housed, they will be happy. Some of the events in Northern Ireland result from the fact that people have time on their hands, and inadequate employment and housing.
The Housing Executive is a dinosaur. It is the strangest animal that was ever inflicted upon the people of Northern Ireland. I was told by the director-general of the Housing Executive that I wrote far too many letters to him. Recently he said that in the first few months of the year he had received 600 letters from me. I said that he would receive another 600 as soon as I could write them. The process is that we must write letters.
Neither I nor any other Member of Parliament has any standing in the office of the Housing Executive. The only person to whom we may write is the director-general. I write to him pointing out different situations. A woman may find that a tile has come off the roof of her house. She may have complained 10


times that rain was coming in. She may have asked for someone to come to put the tile on. Nothing is done. The people involved ask me whether I can do something. I write to the director-general. The director-general replies acknowledging the letter, saying that the matter will be looked into. In three or four weeks one receives a reply that the job has been done. Then, when that reply from the Housing Executive is sent to the person concerned, that person writes back to say that the people at the Housing Executive are liars and that no one has come to fix the new tile. That sort of thing has happened in my constituency over and over again, and it has happened many times in the experience of all hon. Members from Northern Ireland.
I will mention one other case showing the failure of the Housing Executive to do what it is supposed to do. In my constituency advice centre in Larne I met a mother who had recently given birth to a child. The hot water system in her house was not working. She complained to the Housing Executive about it. No one came to look at it. I wrote asking the Housing Executive to look at it. I was told that the matter would be attended to, and then later that everything necessary had been done. The person concerned then informed me that the work had not been done.
I shall not weary the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with any more of these items of practical experience, but what can one do when one is told by the executive that the work has been done when in fact this is not the case?
I now turn to the matter of house sales. When the Housing Executive is selling a house it puts a great value on it, but when it is demolishing a house it puts no value at all on it. There is a completely different scale applied. When the Housing Executive is selling one of its 54,000 houses, a very high valuation is put on it. The executive is asking £5,000 and £6,000 for houses in my constituency which were built for £100. That is indeed good business for the Housing Executive. But when the Housing Executive wishes to demolish a house it will offer the person concerned £50 for the site value.
That has happened in Harryville, a suburb of the etown of Ballymena, where

there is to be a vast housing complex. The Housing Executive is seeking to demolish the houses there. In some cases it has not even negotiated with the people as to what they will get. But the people concerned, having had their houses vested in the executive, have then received a letter from the executive saying "You are now a tenant of the Housing Executive and will pay £3 a week." That is for the same house for which the executive offered £50 site value for demolition.
This is a public scandal in Northern Ireland, and the sooner the Minister wakes up and does something about it, the better. It is a matter that is very close to the heart of the people concerned.

Mr. Fitt: I feel compelled to rise again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in support of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I have a case now about which I am in contact with the Housing Executive. A woman called Traynor lived in a house in Leeson Street, off the Falls Road. In 1971 she was told that the area was to be vested. Her property was a house and a small shop combined. She left it, having found another house. As she was the owner, she then let the house and small shop to another person for about £2 a week. The Housing Executive then vested that little shop and increased the rent to £5 a week, which it has been taking from 1971 up to the present day. Recently Mrs. Traynor received a letter from the Housing Executive saying "You have an interest in this property. We now offer you £26 in full settlement." That is the sort of confiscation that is going on in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member's remarks illustrate what I have been trying to say. I do not think it is the duty of the Member of Parliament to have to call a meeting of all the tenants and bring Housing Executive officials to that meeting to try to hammer out individual settlements. Members of Parliament have many duties to perform in Northern Ireland and it is not right that they should have to perform duties that are the responsibility of the Housing Executive and its officials.
I refer briefly to the Doury Road estate. It was a good estate, but it became a disgrace because of neglect by the Housing Executive. Good houses were


wrecked and left vandalised. The people on the estate pleaded with the Housing Executive to take some action, but it allowed the estate to deteriorate. I have gone around that estate. I have called the officials and they have promised to do something, but they have never done anything. Fortunately, one of my councillors who belongs to the Democratic Unionist Party was elected to the Housing Executive through the Housing Council—the Rev. William McCrea, of Magherafelt. I got him to come down, and immediately I got action. The whole estate has been cleaned up. That was done because of one member of the Housing Executive right at the top. But it should not be up to the Member of Parliament to have to go to an individual on the Housing Executive and drag him from his work to look at an estate. That is what is happening.
The Housing Executive must be accountable in this House and the Minister must answer these questions. I often put down questions and I get the same answer as the hon. Member for Belfast, West. I am told time and again that this is a matter for the Housing Executive. I say that it is a matter for this House, which pays the Housing Executive. There must be some public accountability.
We are called Housing Executive bashers. I know that the executive has difficulties. It has a bad inheritance. In my area the houses that it inherited from the Moyle council, the Ballycastle council, the Ballymoney council, and the Ballymena rural district council were disgraceful. Some of these houses have been built for 50 years and have never had a coat of paint put on their doors. I know that, but I feel that in some way the Housing Executive should be able to give an account to the Members of Parliament. We have absolutely no standing. But if one belongs to the Housing Council one can walk into the executive's offices and demand certain things—and rightly so. When I proposed that all hon. Members representing Northern Ireland should be on the Housing Council, the executive just about pulled down the heavens. It said that it did not want Members interfering in its affairs.
Then, of course, we have arrogance in the local offices of the Housing Council

where people go in and threaten to see their Member of Parliament if no action is taken by the executive. These local officers say that they do not care. I shall name one person in particular, a Miss Cousley, in Ballymoney. I have written to the Housing Executive about her and the way she treats people who threaten to go to their Member of Parliament. It is an absolute disgrace. In a court case this week we heard about the arrogant way in which people were treated by these local officers. The tenants of the Housing Executive are citizens of Northern Ireland and have a right to be respected. No arrogant official of the Housing Executive has any right to curse them, use bad language to them or take the name of their Member of Parliament in vain.
I hope that the Housing Executive will get the message loud and clear. We have had enough nonsense from it. It is time it did the job it is called upon to do. If it cannot, it should get out and let someone else do it.
The subject of transport has been well covered tonight. However, some of us are exasperated by the security checks at airports, especially at Heathrow. I was travelling recently from the House to a church service and carrying a copy of the scriptures. After going through the checkpoint at Heathrow, I went into the toilet and was followed by one of the top security men. He said "You have a Bible in your hand". I said "I have". He said "You will hand that over". I said "You will be a good fellow if you take that Bible from me". He said "You are not supposed to carry that on to the plane", but I said that I would be doing so. When I got outside, I saw scores of people carrying hard-back books. I approached the security man who had previously spoken to me and told him of this. He was not interested in carrying on the argument and told me to return to my seat. However, I said that I would carry the argument further and would mention it the next time that I spoke in the House.
In a previous debate I mentioned that one business man who brings much business to Northern Ireland was recently told that he could carry only one newspaper on to the aeroplane. He was told to hand over the other two newspapers that


he had been carrying. They were put into a plastic bag and placed in the hold of the aeroplane. That is the kind of petty security check being operated.
Why should one not be allowed to carry on to the aeroplane a briefcase that has been searched over and again? If the searchers did their job properly, the security staff would not object to briefcases being carried on to aeroplanes. Yet ladies are allowed to carry their handbags on to aeroplanes. A visitor to Northern Ireland told me that he was travelling with a case that had a strap. At the airport he was told that he could not carry it on to the aeroplane. He said "I thought there was an Act against sex discrimination in this country. I claim my rights under that Act." He was told "If that is your attitude, then we shall have to let you on". If a case is searched, it should be allowed on to the aeroplane.
I am not as hopeful as the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) that the travel services are pulling up their socks. I think that there is a need for a second service, regardless of the shuttle service. I am informed that British Airways will make a large profit on the London to Belfast route this year—even though aircraft are flown back to Glasgow at night. The time has come for the fares to be lowered. A one-way journey to the United States with two good meals can be obtained for the price of a return between London and Belfast. The facilities are not good either in Belfast or Heathrow. The facilities for collecting hand luggage are particularly bad, especially when there is a large crowd fighting to get their luggage.
I do not know why plastic bags are sometimes put on the luggage. Sometimes only a small scrap of plastic is put around cases. Perhaps there is an employee in the plastic bag racket and it suits him to have that type of security.
There is a need for improvement of the air link between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I hope that British Midland will get the licence to fly into Heathrow. The Underground now runs into Heathrow and everyone wants to fly into the airport because it provides a quick link to the centre of London and the communicating railway lines. Gatwick airport is good, but mainly for

those taking flights from Gatwick to other parts of the world.
A jetfoil service should be initiated between Belfast, Carrickfergus or Bangor and London. I claim a constituency interest, but I believe that a cheap jetfoil service from any one of those places across to the mainland of the United Kingdom should be introduced. The Government have been giving money to industries in Northern Ireland. Strathearn Audio is an example. I said in our last debate that we had been told that a Japanese firm might be taking over that company. Will the Minister put the record straight? Has the Japanese firm declared that it is no longer interested?
Perhaps the Minister will also tell us how much the managing director of Strathearn Audio, Mr. Gordon Smith, received. He kept telling us what he proposed to do with the firm. He was often on television telling people that he would save the firm and that it would be receiving more money. Some security chiefs have told me that parts of Strathearn Audio were found in some of the detonators used in IRA bombs. It is time that we had the facts out in the light. Is the Japanese company still interested? If so, how much money will it receive to restart operations?
When we put money into creating employment, we must make sure that we will get employment and that the assistance will be worth while. I would rather see assistance given to save Hughes Bakeries, because that firm has been providing employment for many years, than see money going into a fly-by-night company. We have had too many such companies in Northern Ireland.
I am concerned about what happens when there are emergencies in Northern Ireland. When I returned to my constituency from the House recently, I learnt that oil had got into the water supply of Island Magee and Whitehead. What was running out of the taps looked like liquid TVO. I got in touch with Stormont and was told that there was nothing to worry about because water tankers had been sent to the area. I do not believe what Stormont tells me—the Government should be ashamed that I have to say that—and I got in my car and drove straight to Whitehead. I discovered that the only assistance that had been provided was


a lorry carrying six old zinc water tanks. I ran my hand up the side of the tanks and discovered that they were covered with mud. When people turned on the taps, the stuff that came out was like porridge. That was supposed to be their supply of drinking water. They could not drink it.
When I contacted the duty officer, I was told that the Minister was out at a function and that it was not possible to get the chief engineer. The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), who was the Stormont Member for the area, will know about the situation at Island Magee. I waited with the people there and only after a very long time were we condescendingly treated to clean water. Yet I had been told much earlier that everything had been taken care of.
We have never heard how the oil got into the water. What steps have been taken to deal with it? Is the water now fit for human consumption? Were the main pipes contaminated? Have they been cleaned? That episode was an example of what happens under direct rule. A Stormont Member could have got in touch with the responsible Minister and have got action. Government was nearer to the people then.
I must bring two other matters to the attention of the House before I sit down to give my colleagues time to take part in the debate. The first concerns Rathlin Island. I am the only Northern Ireland Member with an inhabited island in his constituency. It is the only inhabited island in Northern Ireland.

Mr. James Kilfedder: No.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Perhaps it is not the only one, but it is the largest. It used to have 1,000 inhabitants, but now there are only a little over 100. I am concerned about them, because from time to time they are cut off by high seas. A little over a week ago the supply boat was collecting its supplies at Ballycastle. The harbour there is in a deplorable state. The freak waves that come across it are notable for their destruction. At the weekend a man and his daughter were swept off the road, and they were saved only by Providence.
All the supplies for the island were swept into the tide and washed away. Boats were unable to make the island for a week. I telephoned the Department concerned and asked whether a helicopter could be sent to take the supplies to the island, and was told that certainly something would be done.
I was out of the country during the recess. When I returned the secretary of the island committee telephoned me and said that the islanders had no supplies. I got in touch with the Department, which told me that it could do nothing unless the Moyle district council made an official request.
Anyone who knows the politics of Northern Antrim knows that the Moyle council utterly detests the Rathlin islanders. Anything they have ever asked the council to do has been refused. Any representations they have made to the council have been thrown out. In fact, the day two councillors raised the matter of the supplies being swept overboard, the chairman of the council sat back in his chair and said "Isn't that a great laugh? They have lost their supplies". Yet those in the Moyle council are the people who say whether the island will have a helicopter.
I pointed that out to the Department, and after it had put pressure on the Moyle council the council consented—after the island had been cut off for a week—to request a helicopter to get supplies into the island. I ask the Minister to make it clear to the council that in the future he will not consult it when the island is cut off.
The island has an elected committee. I made a plea in the House that a councillor should be elected from Rathlin to represent the people on the Moyle council, but that plea was voted down because it was said that there were only a few islands. They have no representation on the council. They are not listened to when they make representations. But when they are cut off—

Mr. Wm. Ross: Is it not a fact, if my memory serves me correctly, that the island of Rathlin is a ward of the Moyle council?

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is not a ward. It is part of a ward. But the people have no councillor of their own. I wanted


them to have a councillor of their own to represent them, but that was not granted in the House.
I know that there are only 110 people on the island, but they are in a unique position. They are cut off many times. Hon. Members should go to Scotland and see how the islanders are treated there. They should even go to the Republic of Ireland and see how the islanders are treated.
Why should the Rathlin islanders have to wait until Fergus Wheeler, the chairman of the Moyle council, after he has his laugh, condescends to say "Yes, you can have supplies"? If the island is cut off, as the Member for the area I demand that the islanders have a helicopter for supplies to be flown in immediately.
I am not condemning the Department, because it had to work under that rule. I am glad that it put pressure on the Moyle council. I hope that the Minister will change the rule so that in future he can get supplies to the island immediately when it is cut off.
I am glad to end on a more happy note from the Minister's point of view. The Department has authorised boring in the famous village of Ahoghill, where the former Prime Minister, that tragic figure Terence O'Neill, used to live. I am glad that there has been some success with the boring. But perhaps the Minister will go a little further and tell us just how successful it is. I understand that hot springs have been encountered some 5,500 feet down. When I visited that drill hole, the water was bubbling up, and rumour has it that it could be a very valuable find.
I understand, too, that the Minister intends to authorise offshore drilling off North Antrim to search for natural gas and possibly oil. North Antrim may not be very well respected because of its Member of Parliament, but I am sure that we shall be courted well if gas, oil or coal is found in that area. I hope that the Minister will give us some sort of report about that very important exploration.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Before I call another hon. Member, may I remind the House that it is hoped that the winding-up speeches will begin in 40 minutes? I

know that there are at least three hon. Members who are trying to catch my eye.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Win. Ross: A very large part of this debate has been concerned with employment prospects in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) referred to the problems being encountered by a firm in his constituency which is trying to develop an unusual and perhaps unique clay deposit in Aghadowey. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) spoke of the Peter Pan bakeries, in which I also have constituency interests. When the Minister replies to this debate, I shall be grateful if he can say whether the viability of the various components of the Peter Pan firm have been examined with a view to the possibility of selling off those parts of the firm which were viable before the present conglomerate came into existence.
Having said that, I should like to develop the theme of employment and unemployment in my constituency and put a few matters to the Minister in the hope that he will listen and try to meet the first desire of the people for employment and the second desire of the general populace for the decentralisation of Government bodies and functions throughout Northern Ireland and principally to the western and most sparsely populated parts of the Province.
The Government always express their pious faith in a policy of decentralisation. Although I am happy to hear their commitment to decentralisation, I should be much happier if I could see some action in that direction. Far too often I fear that they pay only lip service to decentralisation.
We have seen the movement towards the concept of removing the design team of the water service in Londonderry city. I deplore it and I have already protested about it to the Minister. However, I fear that it is going ahead despite my protests and those of many other people in the area. We have also seen changes in the structure of the Northern Ireland electricity service, which is building a headquarters in Campsie in my constituency. It has been the subject of many protests in this House already, and it is leading to a very much poorer service to


consumers. Then we have the centralisation of road fund licensing in county hall, Coleraine. That, to say the least of it, has not been a success. It is most inconvenient for those who have to travel there.
In the light of all this, I should like to see some success brought about by the decentralisation of Government functions. An opportunity has now been presented by the proposed introduction of the 10-year driving licence which I believe has to be centralised. The Minister wrote to me some time ago indicating that this unit was to be situated in Belfast at the Department of Health and Social Services building in Corporation Street. Despite the decision which has apparently been made or is in the process of being made in favour of this building, many questions need to be answered. It is rumoured that the building was offered to a number of other Government Departments. One name mentioned to me is the Manpower Services Commission, which turned it down for one reason or another. It is also known that the union concerned, the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance, is against centralisation. The Minister's letter to me speaks of full consultation with the union.
Members of this House have experienced consultation. We know exactly what consultation means. People attend at a workplace, listen to what the union or local representatives say, then go away and do not change their minds at all. They do not even seem to take into account what was said to them. There was consultation over the centralisation of road fund licensing many years ago. I am told that the local officials who dealt with that aspect of life in Northern Ireland were much opposed to centralisation. However, the Stormont officials supported centralisation. Centralisation came about. It was a total failure.
The fact was that the early recommendation was for county hall, Coleraine, based on a number of reasons, among which was the great difficulty being experienced in getting senior DOE staff to move to the Belfast city area. Most of these people who own their own homes or who are in the process of buying them find great difficulty in moving and prefer to stay where they are. There is also the problem of the need of the provincial centres.

This is recognised by the union as well as the councils concerned. All desire to see job opportunities in the Government service brought to the more remote parts of Northern Ireland. The security aspect of siting fairly complex machinery where it could easily be got at and damaged also had to be considered.
The Minister's letter indicates that the building which was available or apparently available in the town centre block in Craigavon was not what was needed. It also indicates that county hall, Coleraine was ruled out. I wonder why county hall was not considered suitable. Despite my earlier view that a considerable number of jobs were involved, I am now told that very few people are involved in handling driving licences in Northern Ireland. I am told by the Minister that the machinery cost £180,000. My experience of machines in this day and age is that £180,000 does not buy very much. Those Members of this House who attended a demonstration in which driving licences and suchlike documents were placed on film saw machines that were very small but did the job very effectively. I should like to know precisely what sort of machine is being bought, what it does and what space is needed to house it. The space cannot be very large. If County Hall is to be bypassed, there must be a far better argument than lack of space. What is the argument against county hall, Coleraine?
Also, the new road fund licence machines which have recently arrived at county hall will, after the necessary work is done in putting all the records on to the computer, mean a considerable reduction of staff. That, coupled with the proposal to abandon road tax, will make space available at county hall. Why cannot that space be used? County hall is the proper place for the central driving licence unit. It is secure and it has available staff and it is west of the Bann, in a high unemployment area. The only real objection is that it is said to be a security risk to have two lots of records in the same building. That is not good enough. It is much easier to protect one building properly than to give second-rate protection to two buildings.
Will the Minister take a long, hard look at the siting of this unit? Cannot something be moved out into the sticks


for a change instead of taking everything possible into Belfast, away from the people, and thereby depriving the rural areas of jobs, opportunities and a payroll to which they are entitled?
I will not be quite as scathing about the Housing Executive as some hon. Members have been. I shall try to be constructive. The executive is not building

enough homes for old-age pensioners. The system of providing housing for old people seems to be downgraded. As a result, many old people live in dwellings far too big for them, which could be made available for families if only more old people's homes were built. Why is the executive refusing to raise the percentage of such homes on new estates?

10.7 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I wish to deal mainly with the information and press service of the Northern Ireland Office and to ask for some explanation of why it is falling down on the job of countering IRA propaganda in Great Britain and abroad. I am not asking that the Northern Ireland Office should pay for people to be employed on newspapers under bogus names. That is the sort of trick that one associates with the CIA and which we can well do without in the United Kingdom.
I can give an example along these lines. The Sunday News employs a columnist under a bogus name. He has a contract with the newspaper under which his name is not to be divulged to the readers. He happens to be a Unionist Party propagandist who uses his privileged position to attack opponents of his leaders, including myself. I refer to Mr. John Morrison, whose real name is Mr. Hugh Shearman.
I think that Mr. Hugh Shearman, who is widely blamed for the more mediocre of Mr. West's speeches, should not write under a bogus name. If he is writing as a party propagandist, and does not want to mislead his unsuspecting readers, he should be proud to state his party.
I wish to protest vehemently about the image of Belfast and of the Ulster people conveyed in last night's ITV play, "I'm All Right, Montreal". That was in the tradition of programmes such as the play broadcast a little while ago on BBC television, called "The Last Window Cleaner", which also purported to explain what was happening in Northern Ireland.
Anyone watching either play and similar programmes on all three channels which exploit the war in Northern Ireland—they seem to delight in dipping their hands into the blood of Ulster people which has been spilled by the terrorists over the years—would wrongly be led to believe that everyone in the Province is caught up in violence or hung up on hatred.
That is demonstrably not so, especially to anyone who has taken the trouble to visit the Province and meet the ordinary people there who are the best people in the world. That message, sadly, is not getting across. I blame the Government, just as I point the finger of accusation at

their predecessors in office, for failing to make sure that people abroad realise the merits of the Ulster people.
An example of antagonism has already been given in tonight's debate of the policeman at Gatwick who looks upon all travellers to Northern Ireland as terrorists or suspected terrorists. That is the message that television programmes and press comments give to people in Britain. The message is that the people of Northern Ireland are second-class citizens who are not worth the moral support that we believe the United Kingdom should give them. I am not surprised that the people in Great Britain and in other countries who watch productions such as the two I have described, and others which give a brutal distortion of life in Northern Ireland and callously blacken the Ulster character, have less sympathy and understanding for the citizens of Northern Ireland than they should have.
The propaganda value of all this to the Provisional IRA must be enormous. It wishes to give the impression that violence is the only way of life in Northern Ireland. The Provisional IRA knows by now, after it has committed the most appalling and obscene atrocities, that it cannot bomb, shoot and mutilate the Ulster people into submission. It intends instead, therefore, to convince the people of Great Britain that they should abandon Northern Ireland and its people.
The time is long overdue when the Government, using particularly their information and press office in Northern Ireland, should counter this defamation of the Ulster people. For a start, the Government might remind the BBC and the ITV that the Ulster people, going through a hell not of their own creation, should be given every possible moral support and encouragement. Is it too much for the Ulster people to ask, since they have shown such remarkable restraint and forbearance over the last 10 years in the face of terrible acts of violence, that people throughout the rest of the United Kingdom should recognise their courage, tenacity and decency, and to ask that these qualities are broadcast in Great Britain and elsewhere in the world, particularly in the United States?
The picture of life in Northern Ireland as portrayed in the plays I have referred to—and there have been other programmes not unlike them—is false,


bizarre and brutal. It is a cruel portrayal of people in a Province which has had to endure 10 years of terrorism. Might not the Northern Ireland information office be provided with more money so that the staff could show that all this violence can and does occur in other parts of the United Kingdom? It is worth recalling, when television wrongly and falsely castigates the Ulster people, the racialism which exists in London, the Midlands and elsewhere, where Fascist thugs are prepared to use the boot against Asians and other coloured immigrants.
It is worth recalling what happens in South London where it is unsafe for people to walk. Mugging takes place. It is a disgrace under what is supposed to be the British rule of law. Yet pompous people there can preach to the people in Northern Ireland, pretending that the Ulster folk are less than normal. I should prefer to be an Ulsterman any day than to be part and parcel of those who operate in certain other parts of the United Kingdom. There are people in Great Britain who preach hatred and violence and advocate a way of life which is reprehensible. That is why I am surprised that the Government, and their Conservative predecessors, have failed to show the Ulster people in their true light; they have failed to show that they are decent people who want a decent way of life for all Ulster citizens. They have failed to show that those people are industrious, God fearing and dedicated to improving the condition of all the people in the Province who wish to be good citizens of the United Kingdom.
It is sad that people are given the impression that life in Northern Ireland is far worse than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Yet I know from having practised at the London Bar and talking to friends that life is one terrible hell in parts of London and some parts of Great Britain. The United States, which proclaims its belief in human rights, castigates Russia for failing to fulfil its obligations under the human rights treaty that it has adopted. United States Congressmen have attacked Northern Ireland. A Mr. Biaggi came to Ulster. He is an Italian ex-policeman, who is a member of some political caucus in New York.
Some members of Congress set up an ad hoc committee on human rights in Northern Ireland and one is entitled to ask whether they are so politically corrupt that they are blind to the harrowing examples of social deprivation, the poverty, the criminality and the racialism which exists in the United States of America. One reads of the terrible brutalities in their prisons. One hears of rape, of beatings up by warders, and attacks by fellow prisoners. Yet these people have the audacity to come to Northern Ireland and to say that there is brutality in the Maze prison and that the Maze prison is a disgrace even by the standards of some South American republic or Communist country.
Our prisons in Northern Ireland—one of them is pretty old—are far better than the prisons in the United States of America. I do not have all the facts about conditions in America on which I could form a value judgment about the lack of human rights. But to enable me to do this and to monitor the many violations which obviously occur there, together with breaches of the human rights agreement, I intend to follow the example of Mr. Biaggi and set up at Westminster a committee—I hope I shall have support from Members on both sides of the House—to take evidence from people who have been badly treated in the United States, for example from the American Indians, whose rights have been taken from them, and from people who have suffered at the hands of politicians and lawyers, or even at the hands of the law. In that way perhaps we can help the United States to be true to the declaration of Abraham Lincoln.
I understand that two civil servants went to the United States a short time ago to counter the Provisional IRA propaganda about H block in the Maze prison. I believe that they have not had much success because the Irish Republican Army has considerable power in the United States through Irish influence. Indeed, this ad hoc committee on human rights in Northern Ireland even treats with contempt the remarks of Mr. Lynch and other Ministers in the Irish Republic.
The Northern Ireland Office, as well as the people of Ulster, must turn not so much to the United States, from which we


shall obviously not get much support, but to Europe and to the Commonwealth. I emphasise the need to rely upn the Commonwealth. The Government seem to ignore the need to brief the Commonwealth Governments about Ulster, about the menace presented by the Provisional IRA and about the lies that it disseminates throughout the world.
The Northern Ireland Ministers have a splendid opportunity to give Northern Ireland a tremendous boost. The turn for hosting the Commonwealth games in 1986 has come to the United Kingdom. I understand that some cities in England are interested in being host for the games. The Commonwealth games have been held in England, Scotland and Wales, but they have never been held in Northern Ireland. I shall accuse this Government of discrimination against Northern Ireland if they do not force their will and ensure that the games come to Northern Ireland. I have already asked the Secretary of State about this. I have urged that the games be held in the Province. He rejected my plea out of hand. I repeat that plea, albeit that it is only to the Under-Secretary of State. I do not mean to be disrespectful to him.
It is an indictment of direct rule that the Secretary of State and other Ministers have not been present for the debate. That bolsters the arguments of the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and of myself for an end to direct rule. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will convey my plea to the Secretary of State and to the Prime Minister. Let them proclaim that the Commonwealth games will be held in Northern Ireland in 1986. By making that decision the Government will show that they have faith in Northern Ireland. They will prove it to the world, to the Common Market and to the United States.
Such a decision would bring untold benefits to the Province, apart from the pleasure of acting as host to fellow members of the Commonwealth. Such a decision would induce more investment in Northern Ireland and help to begin the process of rejuvenation. That is what we want. I am told that the total cost of providing the sporting facilities is about £15 million at present day prices. More hotels are needed in the Province. The

holding of the games would start that building process. There is good accommodation already for the athletes at Queen's university in hostel accommodation.
Northern Ireland needs a new stadium. A stadium which is built for the games would be of benefit to the Northern Ireland people for a long time. We need a stadium that will seat about 30,000 spectators. We also need a 40-metre swimming pool and a diving pool to meet international requirements. A cycle track could be upgraded. The existing sports halls could cater for many competitions.
I urge the Government to change their mind and to fight for the Commonwealth games to be held in Northern Ireland. If they fail to do that, I shall accuse them of betraying the Ulster people, who need this decision to restore their faith in Westminster. We have heard enough examples of the grievances caused by direct rule, which is distant, arrogant and pays no regard to the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland.
Unfortunately, I am unable to speak about all the other matters that I wished to raise. Because of direct rule, a representative cannot articulate the needs, the problems and the anger of his constituents. I therefore say that the sooner we end direct rule, the better it will be for Northern Ireland and for its people.
I hope that we in Northern Ireland will be given a referendum such as the Prime Minister said that the people of Scotland and Wales were in justice entitled to. The people of Scotland and Wales have given their answer. Now let the Government show that they are interested in justice, fair play and equity by saying that the Ulster people will be given their opportunity, despite what some hon. Members from Northern Ireland may wish.
Let the Ulster people be given the opportunity of deciding in a referendum whether they want a Stormont Parliament. I assure the House that the overwhelming majority will vote for a devolved Parliament at Stormont.

Mr. John Dunlop: Mr. John Dunlop (Mid-Ulster) rose—

Mr. John Carson: Mr. John Carson(Belfast, North) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal to the hon. Members? If they will take five minutes each, I can give both of them the opportunity to speak.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. John Dunlop: I wish to refer to class IX in the Appropriation order dealing with health and social services and certain other services. The sum of about £23 million has been allocated to these services, and there is a note about an increase of £504,000. I think that I am right in saying that none of this increase is being allocated to more money for those engaged in the health and personal social services. I wish therefore to say something about members of the Royal College of Nursing in Tyrone and Fermanagh hospital, and the facts which I shall give apply equally to other hospitals in my constituency, notably the Tyrone county hospital in Omagh and the Mid-Ulster hospital in Magherafelt.
I shall give a few examples of the heavy responsibility which rests upon these people and the totally inadequate remuneration which they receive. I talked to a few of them last Monday. My first example is of a male nursing officer with 34 patients and 11 staff in the psychiatric department, this department having no secure units. He has a demanding and responsible job, and he takes home about £60 a week on which to keep his wife and family. This is disgraceful.
I take next a principal nursing officer—a man with a wife and five children—who has overall responsibility for 930 beds and 548 staff. He takes home a basic average weekly pay of £68·50. As I contrast pay of this kind with what is received by a leading hand in British Leyland who has equal responsibility, I am inclined to think that the man in British Leyland would not be content with that money as a bonus, never mind as basic pay.
Next, I take the example of a senior nursing officer responsible for education, for teaching nurses. He is responsible for 150 student nurses and seven staff. He has to give special training. He has to prepare his students for examinations which will qualify them to carry on in their chosen vocation, and the results of his work show. He must work well,

because if he does not the results will be revealed in the performance of his students. This nursing officer himself undergoes a heavy training programme in order to qualify to do that work, yet he takes home on average about £80 a week, which compares poorly with what is received by teachers in other forms of education.
I emphasise the nature and quality of these Royal College of Nursing people and other hospital workers, and I have in mind the pressures now being applied here on the mainland to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Services.
I could mention many other matters, but time presses and I shall not weary the House with much more detail. I mention only a lady health visitor, a community worker with responsibility for about 700 families. She receives £67 a week, out of which she has to provide a car. She receives £169 per annum for the maintenance of the car. Anyone familiar with garage charges knows that that will not last long, allowing for a couple of breakdowns a year. These people are on call seven days a week, day and night and on public holidays. They are paid only 12 times a year—only on calendar months—with the result that they are diddled out of four weeks' salary a year.
Ministers ought to look at the recommendations made in the Halsbury committee report of 1974. It was said that nurses and health workers should not fall behind other workers. Because the nurses are responsible people they decided not to take strike action. They must be commended for this. To offer them £1 a week in return is an insult and nothing short of criminal. Living costs in Northern Ireland are higher than elsewhere while pay is lower. This is an important factor to be borne in mind.
To restore the incentive to young men and women to enter the nursing profession and to retain qualified staff already in the service it is necessary to do something drastic about their basic salary. Our country has a high unemployment rate. We must institute a campaign to retain those young nurses. They must be kept in this country, in our service. It does not make sense to let them leave, taking their skills elsewhere. It is worth looking at the salaries of nurses in the Republic


of Ireland. I trust that the Minister will do so.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. John Carson: I refer briefly to class V of the order. I endorse what the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) have said about the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I do not doubt the real reason for the absence of the Minister. He knows that he would be facing a lot of awkward questions. These are important questions for the people of Northern Ireland.
Recently I tabled about 10 questions to the Department. I received an identical reply to each question. I was told that the point raised was a matter for the Housing Executive. On behalf of the people of Belfast, North I will not accept that from the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter). He ought to give me an answer. I say that with great respect to every other Minister in the Department.
I do not criticise the Northern Ireland Office. I receive great help and am treated with the utmost courtesy by the Office. Frequently the Minister of State has arranged meetings and met deputations which I have led to see him at very short notice. The Minister responsible for the Department of the Environment is the most arrogant Minister who ever held office in Northern Ireland. He is responsible for the public money being spent by the Housing Executive.
District 4 office of the Housing Executive is in my constituency. The Minister answered a question about this last year but refused to answer the same question this year. This suggests that there is a cover-up for officials inside the executive. That district office was to be moved to new accommodation about 16 months ago. Recently I was told that £30,000 has been paid in rent for the accommodation of the district 4 office in Royal Avenue and for car parking spaces. Yet no one is ready to move into these offices. There is an office at Cookstown that was taken over by the executive two years ago. The key has not yet been turned in the door.
I have mentioned only two examples. There are many more, but time does not

permit me to refer to them. The executive is squandering public money on office accommodation when the money would be much better spent on carrying out essential repairs on behalf of many elderly people in the Province.
There is an old lady of 78 years in my constituency who is a tenant of the Housing Executive. Four months ago her back door was removed in the course of repairs. A piece of hardboard was the replacement door. She had to face the winter without a back door. For four weeks she had to wait for a burst pipe to be repaired. That may bring a smirk to some hon. Members' faces but it is a serious matter. It seems that the executive may squander millions of pounds on luxury office accommodation—it is one of the largest employers in Northern Ireland—yet not be prepared to give a service to its tenants or to carry out maintenance work.
I was told last week that the maintenance officers were on strike. I said that it would not matter as they did not carry out any maintenance. We often hear about the thousands of maintenance reports. The Minister does not tell us that some of the repair reports have been recorded, 10, 12 and 30 times. That is what is happening.
Time does not permit me to enlarge on the tragedy that has happened to the people of Northern Ireland through the bad management of the Housing Executive. The Minister who is responsible is not prepared to take action. It seems that he is not prepared to accept responsibility and to give an account of his stewardship and of the public money that he is wasting.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The debates on the Northern Ireland Appropriation orders are always very much of a mosaic composed of pieces of differing sizes, shapes and colours; but rarely has the variety of the mosaic been as great as in this evening's debate.
Nevertheless, considering the debate as a whole, there are two pieces that seem to stand out of the pattern. One piece is that to which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) added his contribution, all too briefly—namely, the dilemma, that will be insoluble as


long as there is no elective local government, of the Housing Executive. Of course, it must have a certain internal responsibility for management, allocation and maintenance; but in the present framework it is entirely the creature of central Government, and Members in the House, being the only responsible representatives, are thus entitled to expect from central Government not merely general but precise replies, which they do not obtain.
The other piece that I have in mind in the pattern is that of transportation between Northern Ireland and the mainland. For Northern Ireland the transport link with Great Britain is literally life and death. It is a special disadvantage to Northern Ireland—in every respect, political, social and economic—to be so reliant upon the air link. There are two twin requirements that have not yet been fulfilled if we are to have the necessary communications with the mainland of Great Britain. Those requirements are competition and multiplicity.
Many of the criticisms made by hon. Members of the efficiency and cost of the service provided by British Airways would not exist if there were adequate competition. There should be not two but three systems competing to provide air transport between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is something in which the Northern Ireland Development Agency ought to be able to help; for surely there is a field here for enterprise which it could encourage and support. We also believe that British Midland requires the recognition of the initiative which it has shown and the service which it has rendered in more difficult times to the people of the Province.
Competition merely in air transport is not sufficient, however. There must be an adequate alternative, or rather a series of adequate alternatives, of surface transport. Good surface transport has been recognised as essential to the parliamentary union ever since the parliamentary union existed. One is ashamed, in looking back 100 years, to discover how efficient and frequent was surface transit then between the island of Ireland and the island of Great Britain compared with the infrequency and slowness of the comparable transit today. There are two or three additional routes which, certainly

for passenger cars and rail passengers, could and should be exploited.
When he spoke at the beginning of this debate, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) invited me to indicate whether progress had been made in stimulating the interest of British Rail. I think that it would probably be better if the Government were brought to reply upon that subject and if we found the way of devoting a special debate to it, where it could be thoroughly examined. But at least I can say from personal knowledge that I have good reason for thinking that British Rail, Sealink and indeed the Northern Ireland railways are not at all insensitive to the new opportunities which are now expanding for the exploitation of surface transport routes between Great Britain and the Province routes. Although they would necessarily be longer in time than the air transit, whenever the air transit is efficient, they would be a guaranteed, reliable and cheaper mode of transport which would certainly create the traffic to sustain it.
Finally on the subject of transport, there has to be an end to the present nonsense of so-called security checks on air travel between the Province and Great Britain. What we have at the moment is a rag-bag of a system which was cobbled together in 1972, added to in 1973, added to again in 1974, with bits stuck on later still in 1976 and 1977. Someone—it is the Government who have this duty—must now look at the whole matter in the context of 1979 and try to make sense of it. The Government would be well advised to take warning from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux); for if the risks which he delineated were ever to be realised, the Government would be very sorry for themselves if they had to justify neglecting his warnings and allowing those conditions to continue for so long when so many hon. Members have drawn attention to the dangers being created.
This is, after all, both a general and a financial debate, and it would be wrong if we concluded it without a reference to the work done for this House, and for Northern Ireland in particular, by those who exercise detailed surveillance of the Northern Ireland finances under the Comptroller and Auditor-General, from


whom we have a report on the past financial year which is not quite 12 months out of date. It is gratifying to be greeted in the first paragraph of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report with the assertion that he believes that accounting and control is showing distinct improvement, and it is interesting to see that he adds that
 the operation of cash limits over a considerable field has in itself improved departmental control ".
I believe that that is true in the United Kingdom as a whole as well as in Northern Ireland.
But it would not be fair to allow that report to lie on the table without inviting the Government to respond in the House to a number of the salient points which the Comptroller and Auditor-General has made, of each of which I have given notice to the Minister who is to reply. I come straight to one which is concerned with cash limits, that is, the overspending of the education boards. What, broadly speaking, is happening is that the education boards are, I would say, deliberately overspending in the knowledge that they will not suffer a corresponding reduction in the following year's allocation but that a special supplementary approval will be given to their excesses. Certainly, the Comptroller and Auditor-General is justified in saying that this is an indefensible practice. He states that he is in correspondence with the Department
 as to the apparent erosion of the principles of cash limits ".
I ask the Minister, when he replies, to bring us up to date on that correspondence and to give an assurance to the House that we are well on the way to getting proper financial control applied through the Department of Education to the boards, as it is applied in the other Departments of Government through the Kingdom.
The Comptroller and Auditor-General devoted a considerable part of his report to the SD3-30 aircraft, manufactured by Short Brothers Limited, and it was not gratifying to be told that on the first six aircraft the sales showed a loss of
 55 per cent. of their cost of manufacture ".
However, those figures are somewhat out of date, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General refered to a statement due at the

end of 1978 which would show the sales of the next 10 aircraft and might "give a clearer picture". How are we going on? In the past we have suffered too often by not being kept in constant touch with the progress of these projects aided with substantial sums of public money. In this case we ought to be told what has been the further experience in 1978.
On the water service—a service which has been in trouble in certain parts of the Province this year—there is bad reading again in the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report on the question of the depots. I will not read it to the House in full, but it is not a report upon the stewardship of public property which this House ought to be willing to accept. We are told by the Comptroller and Auditor-General that it is necessary, in order to correct these deficiencies, to have new and properly organised depots created. I ask the Minister to provide the House tonight with the latest statement to date on progress in creating a new depot system in the water service which will prevent these abuses from continuing.
Then there are two matters of rent. This is always a field in which vigilance is necessary if unfairness is not to be created, as well as public property misused. Here there are two Departments concerned. One is the Department of Education, which has been for a long time failing to find a proper system of assessing the rents paid by its employees who are resident on its premises. It promised the Comptroller and Auditor-General some time ago that
 as a matter of priority, it would be drawing up guidelines for new and re-let residences and would then review the pattern of rentals altogether ".
By now that ought to be completed, and the Minister ought tonight to be able to give the answer to that question.
There is a parallel situation in the Department of Health, where rents are still being charged at 1973 levels in the hospitals simply because it has been found impossible as yet to agree upon the proper system on which rents ought to be assessed. That situation existed at January 1979. The Government should be able to say tonight whether the matter has been cleared up so that there can be fairness and a rational


system, for the taxpayer and those who occupy the property alike.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) referred to Arts Council grants. Let me say that there was no collusion between us, but I should like to refer to that subject also. The administrative costs of operating the Council in 1974–75 were 20 per cent. of the current expenditure. In 1975–76 that figure had increased to 30 per cent. and in 1976–77 it had increased to 36 per cent. Presumably, that year covered the articles on the interview with Seamus Twomey. The figure for 1977–78 has not been provided, but I assume, by a progression, that the figure would be about 40 per cent. I am relieved to see that the Minister is indicating dissent. However, it should be placed on record that the percentages are not merely not increasing but being reduced to a level which the Charity Commissioner would be prepared to tolerate if this was a charity and not the expenditure of public money upon the arts.
The last point that I should like to make is partly about financial control and partly about policy. In a written answer of 30 November 1978 the Under-Secretary of State wrote about a grant-making charitable trust. He said that the Government thought it a pity that Northern Ireland did not have within its boundaries a source of charitable funds such as exist in the rest of the United Kingdom. No hon. Member would disagree with that. The hon. Gentleman said that
 local groups should not be totally dependent on Government ".—[Official Report, 30 November 1978; Vol. 959, c. 282.]
I agree completely with that. He went on to say that the Government had decided that they should encourage the development of an independent and charitable trust—charitable in the full Christian sense of the word—and that they are prepared to give that trust £500,000 of public money before it gets off the ground, just to encourage it in case there is not sufficient initiative, charity or independence. They will also match pound for pound, to a maximum of £250,000, any funds that the trustees can raise from other sources.
There is no statute under which this could be done. It is dealt with by an entry at the bottom of page 70, at D 9. Class IX, Vote 1 "Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust,"
Provision for payment of grant £500,000.

I am aware that under Treasury rules that entry constitutes Parliamentary approval. However, it is not good enough. If this happened elsewhere in the United Kingdom a Minister would make a statement at the Dispatch Box and would be questioned about such a new departure in policy that involved substantial expenditure of public money outside statutory provision. The matter would have to be ventilated in the House and perhaps fully debated before it could be proceeded with.
This has been settled by the ipse dixit of a Minister, a written answer and an entry in the Estimates. However, my hon. Friends and I will see that the matter is debated. We desire to see voluntary effort and charitable funds independent of Government; but there cannot be independence of Government which starts with dependence upon public funds.
I estimate that the Minister will have had approximately 350 per cent. more questions addressed to him than he is able to answer in the 25 minutes which I hope that the Opposition spokesman will leave for him. All the questions that I have put to the Minister, and some others, were notified to him in writing and I am sure that he will answer those tonight. If our experience—brief as it is—is a good guide, he will answer all the others, as fully as he is able, for the hon. Members concerned.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: The Under-Secretary addressed the House for just six minutes in his opening speech. The size of the expenditure involved in the order merited a much longer speech. Even if one is looking at expenditure for the year ending 31 March 1980, which totals £663 million, the Minister was dealing with it at a rate of more than £100 million per minute.
Last year, we had four Northern Ireland Appropriation orders—one in March, two in July and one in December. This is the first such order this year, and I wish to make one suggestion about the future presentation of the orders. It would be for the convenience of the House and of the Minister if we had a greater breakdown on some of the items of expenditure in very large blocks. We have examples of more than £100 million in one block.


We welcome, as did the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), the Under-Secretary's statement that the internal energy review for Northern Ireland is to be published before the Easter Recess and that there will be a Government statement on it. I do not wish to appear churlish, but the review is long overdue. In a debate on the gas industry in the Northern Ireland Committee on 6th July 1977, the Minister of State said:
 I recognise the need for urgency and I appreciate the parlous condition of a number of the gas undertakings…I intend that the decision-making process should be as swift as it possibly can be, so that the industry—and its customers—may be left in doubt no longer than is necessary about the Government's intentions. "—[Official Report, Northern Ireland Committee, 6 July 1977; c. 2.]
Just over a year later, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
 The Minister of State for Northern Ireland is about to put to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland recommendations for gas which arise from discussions with the British Gas Corporation and others."—[Official Report, 24 July 1978; Vol. 954, c. 1276.]
The Government have certainly been a long time in producing the report and we look forward with impatience to seeing it.
Reference has been made to Lord Melchett's recent speech in Londonderry. I hope that the Under-Secretary can tell us to what extent, if any, the items in class VIII, sub-heads 1 and 4, relate to the reorganisation of secondary education in Northern Ireland. I imagine that the answer will be that no part of that expenditure relates to reorganisation, despite what the Minister of State said at the end of that speech:
 I believe the abolition of selection at 11-plus in Northern Ireland is now a certainty—
I certainly disagree with that——
 but all of us who believe in ending the indefensible, divisive system of section must constantly reaffirm our determination to do just that.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us that no part of the sums granted on account under class VIII relate to reorganisation and will also be able to give us the Government's estimate of the cost of bringing about the changes to which Lord Melchett referred.
I turn to part II, class V, concerning expenditure on housing. The first part of my remarks about housing relates to

the more agreeable part. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was highly critical of the Housing Executive's decision to sell 54,000 houses. We on the Opposition Benches warmly welcome that decision, although I had considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman when he complained about the way in which it was announced. After all, it was a major departure in Government policy, in marked contrast with the policy of the Government in Great Britain.
In answer to a question today, the Secretary of State for the Environment said that in the nine months April to December 1978 there was a sale of 23,400 council houses and 400 flats in Great Britain. In the same period in 1976 and 1977 the totals were 3,734 and 9,440 respectively. That marks the extent to which there has been a fundamental change in Government policy. It would have been much better if it had been announced from the Dispatch Box and not through a Housing Executive press release.
I also had considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman when he pointed out how difficult it was to get any response from the Government about the Housing Executive's policy. If ever a case was made for an increasing democratisation of local government in Northern Ireland, it was made in regard to the Housing Executive. It seems that there is no democratic body responsible, and nobody who can be questioned about the Housing Executive's activities.
From the more agreeable aspect, I tutrn to the much less agreeable aspect of the Housing Executive. On 16 February a question about the Housing Executive was asked by the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State. It was not until 16 February that the executive's accounts for the year ended 31 March 1977 were laid before the House. Nearly two years had elapsed from the end of the financial year to the date on which the accounts were laid before Parliament.
The accounts are deeply disturbing. They follow the announcement on 9 March last year of the setting up of an inquiry into the executive's affairs. As we are being invited to approve under class V the expenditure of more than £41 million—and this is only the first


Appropriation order for this year—I hope that the Minister will address himself to some of the most disturbing aspects. I put only a few to him.
The report of the Local Government Auditor and the Comptroller and Auditor-General said that rent arrears in respect of houses and garages increased from £5½ million to £6½ million at 31 March 1977. It added:
 I must state…that in some of the less efficient District Offices arrears follow-up is not as positive as it should be and this has also contributed to the heavy arrears situation.
In the next paragraph, on page 22, we read:
 there has been a failure in several cases to deduct from these payments arrears of rent owing to the Executive for the occupation of such properties following acquisition.
The home loans section on page 23 states:
 The audit of this section by my staff and internal audit has disclosed many weaknesses in financial and administrative control.
The next paragraph states:
 Until the executive complies with the Department's directive it will not be possible to settle outstanding audit queries for this and previous financial years.
On district heating it is stated:
 At the 31 March 1977 the deficit…stood at £697,517 compared with an adjusted deficit balance of £341,182 at the commencement of the year under audit.
The report also states:
 Several outside bodies are receiving supplies from district heating centres but accounts for payment in respect of such supplies have not been rendered.
If the House is to be invited to approve payments of this kind, there is a duty on the Government to comment on this deeply disturbing report from which I make only one more quotation. On page 24, it says:
 I feel that the standard of efficiency in this Division "—
that is, the housing maintenance division—
 would have been improved if, in response to previous audit criticisms, immediate action had been taken by the staff responsible ".
The Minister has had many questions put to him. Although there are many more that I should like to put, it would be for the convenience of the House if we gave him the opportunity to make as long a reply as possible.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Pendry: Perhaps for the first time I understand the meaning of the phrase "the man in the hot seat". To answer any criticism to the effect that my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends are not sitting with me on this Bench, I should like to point out that they are working hard in their own Departments. That should be stated at this stage.
The debate has ranged far and wide. I shall attempt to cover the many points put to me. I should also like to say, though probably not so well as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), that I shall endeavour to answer in correspondence those matters that I cannot cover in this speech. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) raised a number of points on the details of underspending. Decreases in the present provisions which it is proposed to apply as offsets to the additional expenditure are outlined in the spring Supplementary Estimates volume. We wish to ensure that funds appropriated by this House are spent as efficiently as possible.
On the question of the economic planning document, the Government are aware of the economic, social and environmental problems in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Abingdon indicated, the Government have recently published a document entitled "Economic and Social Progress in Northern Ireland: Review and Prospects." The document reviews and assesses recent developments in the economic, social and environmental fields in Northern Ireland and outlines the Government's views on possible ways to enhance economic and soical development in Northern Ireland over the next few years.
The document is intended to stimulate active public discussion of the economic and social problems facing Northern Ireland and possible ways of tackling these problems. The Government look forward particularly to receiving the views of the Economic Council, the political parties and other interested organisations and individuals. When these views have been examined, it is intended that the Northern Ireland general economic strategy will be fully debated, possibly in the Northern Ireland Committee.
I was happy to hear that the Opposition are to meet the De Lorean company and


to put a number of questions to it. I believe that the Opposition will be impressed by the level of management at De Lorean and the progress being made. I am sure that the employment support De Lorean is giving in West Belfast will be welcomed.
The hon. Member also mentioned energy. As I said, we are at present preparing a document on energy, laying out the main considerations. This has been completed and will be published before the Easter Recess. There will be pressure from us for a full debate as soon as possible after the recess.
On educational reorganisation, the hon. Member referred to the speech of my noble Friend Lord Melchett to the Irish National Teachers Organisation in Londonderry, when he referred to the discussion document which has been distributed and said that no decision had been taken. That discussion document was about the transfer procedure for 1980 and not about secondary reorganisation. I should clear up that one before the hon. Gentleman starts believing that we have done an about-turn. The Government's decision that selection by perceived ability at 11-plus should be eliminated was announced in June 1977 and the Government remain firmly committed to that decision.
I believe that those remarks should also satisfy the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), but if not I shall come back to him. In the interests of time, I shall pass on to his other points.
Air services are strictly a matter for the Secretary of State for Trade. However, the adequacy of air services is obviously important to the economy of Northern Ireland, including the tourist industry. We are therefore concerned that full consideration should be given to Northern Ireland's special position and that the service should be provided as efficiently as possible. The Northern Ireland Economic Council has recently published its views on the air passenger services. Those views are currently under consideration by my right hon. Friend, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Trade.
Urgently required work on the aircraft pavement at Aldergrove has recently been completed, as has already been said in the House. A new taxiway link to the

main runway has been involved. A major contract has been let and the works involve the reconstruction and realignment of taxiways, a new electrical ring main, aviation ground lighting and navigational aids, new car parks and engineering facilities. The works will take about 14 months to complete, at a cost of about £6 million. It is hoped to start the second stage of the works early in 1980. That will be the first major step in improving passenger handling facilities at the airport. The estimated cost of that stage is £7·4 million.
Speaking personally, it is a matter of regret, but the Government's decision on the question of the Commonwealth games is firm. The proposal that Northern Ireland should host the 1986 games has been fully considered by the Government and rejected. Estimates of cost vary between £14 million and over £25 million. The priorities—housing, inner city decay, rehabilitation, restoration and general environmental improvement—are higher than a one-off event such as the games. Resources would be prevented from being used to meet the Province's other recreational and community projects if that proposal were to go through. Hotel accommodation and so on in the Belfast area is severely limited and would need to be augmented.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) also spoke about Alder-grove airport and gave many illustrations of the problems and frustrations that are being experienced there. We shall return to the detailed points in correspondence. He referred to the transfer links generally between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I shall ensure that his remarks on that score are brought to the Secretary of State's attention.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Minister give us all the assurance that he will do as my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked and ensure that the Government initiate a concentrated detailed study of the nonsensical security arrangements, or what passes for security arrangements, at Alder-grove and on the Heathrow—Belfast link generally?

Mr. Pendry: I have said that I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Secretary of State's attention, and I shall include that aspect.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) spoke about the Arts Council grant to finance the interview with Seam us Twomey. The publication referred to is regarded generally by the Arts Council and others as a magazine of high literary quality and serious content—[Laughter.] Although that causes some laughter, there are a number of reputable contributors to the magazine. I shall send a list to those hon. Members whom I detected laughing.
The Arts Council does not attempt to exercise detailed editorial control or take responsibility for the inclusion of particular items when it decides to assist publications of this kind. It would, however, discontinue its assistance if there was a serious deterioration in the general level of quality, and it would be concerned if a persistent line of subversive propaganda became apparent.

Mr. Bradford: Is the Minister aware that in the course of the articles to which I referred Seamus Twomey was given the opportunity to boast that Ireland had the most effective guerrilla force in the world, and that it had nothing to learn from other terrorist forces? What great literary value lies in that kind of comment? Does he accept that the kind of questions asked poured honey on this murderous reprobate—points like "I did not expect you to be such a human, warm person "and" I really find you quite a vulnerable man"? What literary value is there in that sort of nonsense?

Mr. Pendry: In the interests of time, I must push on. I am sure that other hon. Members want answers to their questions. I can say only that this is a relatively independent body. The interview took place many years ago, and I am surprised that the issue has raised its head at this stage.
I shall pass on to another serious point which was raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South. He complained about people claiming unemployment benefit when working in another job—what is known as "the double". This matter is causing a good deal of concern. Only last week I chaired a meeting of the Northern Ireland Construction Industry Advisory Council when it was raised. The Department has a specialist branch with 24 specialist investigating officers whose duty is to carry out spot checks,

unexpected interviews and a selective follow-up of certain types of claim where the risk of fraud is higher than usual. Considerable emphasis is placed on prevention, and the system is continually reviewed to prevent possible abuse. It is a matter of great concern, and hon. Members may rest assured that the Government are deeply concerned about this activity.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West made a moving speech in parts. He was in good form and I certainly did not take anything he said about me personally. He raised many points about the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland. Unemployment is not expected to increase or decrease substantially in the coming year. The rise expected in production—some 2 per cent—is not likely to be sufficient to enable employers to recruit more labour. Wages, which have been high, have tended to reduce employment.
There are some minor crumbs of comfort. School leaver unemployment is running at a considerably lower level than last year. In February 1979 it was 2,684 and in February 1978 it was 3,067. This improvement started in September last year. Seasonally adjusted unemployment, excluding school leavers, is currently still almost 1,000 below the summer peak of 1978. Much of the recent increase in unemployment is due to the exceptionally bad weather. I hope that when the weather improves the employment level will rise.
Much more interest has been shown in Northern Ireland as a place for investment, but it will take some time for unemployment to be affected.

Mr. Neave: I quoted from the departmental report which states that employment in the construction and manufacturing industries would experience heavy falls by 1981. What action are the Government taking?

Mr. Pendry: The construction industry levels are in line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a matter for regret, but it is not peculiar to Northern Ireland. It is absolutely in line with the general trend in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked about Peter Pan bakeries. The Minister of State is examining the matter and he will do his best to reach a final view by the end of this week.
I do not think that there is anything that I can add.
Members spoke against the sale of council houses by the Housing Executive. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and other hon. Members did not express that view, but the hon. Member for Belfast, West felt that this was in some way an action which was out of step with the rest of the United Kingdom. I stress that the policy on the sale of council houses in Northern Ireland is in line with policy in Great Britain. Such houses will be sold only in areas where need has been met. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State feels strongly about this and he has resisted the sale of more council houses under this general policy. So, though it may be a matter for regret to some hon. Members, the fact is that it is within the established criteria laid down in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I shall bring to the attention of my hon. Friend the question of the Turf Lodge flats street lighting.
The Bennett report is expected to be available soon. I shall bring those issues which I have not covered in depth to the attention of the appropriate Minister.
The right hon. Member for Belfast, East, (Mr. Craig) made a thoughtful and constructive speech and I regret that I cannot spend more time on it. It was a valuable contribution. Though I have not read the appropriate Hansard, I hope that he did not go into the Lobby in favour of public expenditure cuts.

Mr. Gow: The Minister said that the policies of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and of the Government were the same. In the press release of 29 January the Housing Executive stated:
 A number of vacant houses will be up for sale too ".
But the Secretary of State said this week:
 I shall stop the sales of empty houses and flats that become available for reletting."—[Official Report, 5 March 1979; Vol. 963 c. 934.]
Is there not a difference between what the Government are doing in Great Britain and what they are doing in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Pendry: I stand by what I have said, but I shall look into the questions that have been raised.
The Minister of State will consider the remarks made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). He will do what he can to help the company which the hon. Member mentioned if he thinks that the situation falls within the right criteria and that a viable industry can be created. I shall be pleased to supply the hon. Member with details; I shall correspond with him.
The hon. Member spoke about the problems of the Housing Executive and gave some interesting illustrations of what happens in his constituency. I shall pass those on. He also stressed the problems of Strathearn Audio. The Japanese firm is still interested in Strathearn Audio. I understand that there has been some progress and that the Japanese firm is considering the possibilities carefully. I shall keep the hon. Member up to date.
The hon. Member for Londonderry referred to the Peter Pan Bakeries. He made a specific point about component parts. I shall inform the Minister of State and he will reply to the hon. Member.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) wanted to know the outcome of correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I understand that there has been no outcome. This is a complex issue, but we are alive to the need to keep financial control procedures under review to ensure that weaknesses are identified in an attempt to minimise the possibility of any future excesses.
The right hon. Member also referred to the Department of Education. He asked whether the guidelines on the rents of the new and relet residencies had been given. The Department will be issuing shortly guidelines for the rents for new or relet residencies.
The right hon. Member asked about paragraph 85 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General dealing with the Arts Council. He will be amazed to learn that the level of administrative costs is exactly the same as last year—36 per cent.

Mr. Powell: Is that acceptable?

Mr. Pendry: I have told the right hon. Member the figure. I find it acceptable and I should have thought that he would agree, in view of what he said. I am


sure that the right hon. Member is expressing mock indignation. I have not time to develop the argument.
I have come to the end of my time. A number of matters are outstanding, but I was not left much time to reply. I shall reply to other points as soon as possible. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 19 February, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES)

11.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I beg to move,
That the draft Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 7 February, be approved.
I have been known to move Northern Ireland orders with a very brief speech at this time of the evening, but on this occasion I apologise in advance for a rather longer introduction of the order because I do not believe that it would be for the good of the House if I did not go into matters in some depth, since these are two of the most important industries in Northern Ireland and what we are doing tonight is of considerable significance.
The purpose of the draft order is to establish an appropriate framework for the relationship between the Northern Ireland Department of Commerce and the two State-owned companies of Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers which respectively constitute the shipbuilding and aircraft industries in Northern Ireland. The Department acquired the shares of Harland and Wolff Limited in 1975 under the Shipbuilding Industry (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, and it became the majority shareholder in Short Brothers Limited in 1976, with over 70 per cent. of the issued share capital, the balance being held by the Department of Industry.
In essence, the order is a recognition of the special need for close and continuous contact between the Government and these companies because of their publicly-owned status and their vital importance

to the economic and industrial life of Northern Ireland. It does not represent any radical new departure in the Government's projected role. It is basically a formalisation of the closer relationships which are required and which have in fact been developing in recent years.
The immediate stimulus to new legislation comes from the fact that the Department's powers to provide financial assistance to Harland and Wolff under the No. 2 order of 1975 will expire on 31 March 1979. That order was conceived as an interim measure, with the main aim of enabling the company to complete its then order book by providing for assistance of up to £60 million from public funds.
It was hoped that Harland and Wolff would be able to operate on at least a break-even basis from 1979 onwards. As the House well knows, however, market conditions in shipbuilding have deteriorated very sharply since 1975, and the world shipbuilding industry has been going through a period of unprecedented crisis. Harland and Wolff is no exception, and it is clear that it will need Government financial assistance to survive in any form until conditions improve.
I could perhaps have sought the approval of the House to provide assistance simply by extending the time and money limits of the No. 2 order, or by dealing with Harland and Wolff under the general industries development legislation, as is currently done with Short Brothers. But I believe that it is right to take the opportunity to evolve a specific and more comprehensive framework for the Government's relationships with these two major publicly owned companies, tailored to their particular needs. This is consistent with the existence of legislation special to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries in Great Brtain.
I am glad that this order gives the House an opportunity to discuss the present position and prospects of these two companies. Indeed, the order itself recognises the importance of ensuring that the House is regularly informed of their progress by providing for presentation of the companies' annual reports and accounts. Funding of the companies will be through the normal route in annual Estimates. Thus, Appropriation debates will provide further opportunity for examination and comment, and the funds


allocated to these two companies will be differentiated in the Estimates more clearly than at present from funds for other industrial assistance.
Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers play a vital role in the economy of Northern Ireland. Between them they directly provide almost 14,000 jobs in the Belfast area, where total employment is about 300,000 and unemployment among men currently stands at over 10 per cent. There is also indirect employment to suppliers and sub-contractors on a substantial scale.
Both companies make technically sophisticated products and are important in maintaining Northern Ireland's reservoir of skills and technological expertise. They are both major exporters, competing in very difficult international markets, and to some extent they are ambassadors of Northern Ireland industry throughout the world.
It is of the greatest importance that the companies continue to make these contributions to the economic life of the Province, and it is the aim of the draft order to create a structure within which a rational and informed approach to their futures can be developed. Such an approach will have to take account of many factors, including market conditions, the Government's international obligations concerning the level and character of aid to the industries, the constraints on the use of public funds and, perhaps most important of all, the competitive performance of the companies themselves. I believe that the procedures envisaged in the proposed order will provide the basis for the co-operation between the Government and the companies that will be needed to achieve such an approach.
I should like to look very briefly at each of the companies—first, Harland and Wolff. The greatest single problem hanging over any shipbuilding enterprise at present is the continuing severe depression in the industry. As a result of the world trade recession, the demand for shipping has declined seriously. Many vessels are laid up for lack of economic employment and freight rates have been very low for the last three or four years. Orders from shipowners for new vessels have, naturally, been scarce. On the other hand, world shipbuilding capacity,

encouraged by the boom period in the early 1970s, has increased dramatically. Shipyards in the United Kingdom all have to contend with fierce competition and low prices. State intervention in favour of the shipbuilding industry has proved unavoidable, in one form or another, throughout Western Europe. It seems likely to continue for some years to come.
Harland and Wolff is as much affected by the market conditions as any other yard and thus, despite the very real improvements in its performance since 1975, it finds itself still in need of Government assistance. But in 1975, as I have said, assistance was provided to enable the yard to reorganise and to complete an existing order book which for various reasons had been delayed and could not be carried through without substantial losses. Now it is a question of providing assistance to secure any orders at all and to help the yard survive until trading conditions improve.
The improvements in Harland's performance have been significant. There has been better productivity, industrial relations have been excellent, with an almost complete absence of disruption, and the use of the £60 million approved in 1975 has been effective, to the extent that it has been possible to support some new orders from it as well as to complete the 1975 order book. Although the trade unions have not yet filled the places available to them on the company's board, there has been much progress on worker participation below board which has resulted in a generally improved climate between management and work force. In fact, we have not had what could be called a serious disruption in the shipyard since 1974.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: The whole House will be delighted to hear of the co-operation between the trade unions and management at Harland and Wolff. Has my right hon. Friend heard the very disturbing news from Northern Ireland tonight to the effect that the management of Grunwick has stated that the factory may close because of a fight between two of the main unions? Can he give the House an assurance that he will use all the resources of his Department to try to resolve this dispute?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern):: Order. We are discussing Harland and Wolff.

Mr. Concannon: My short answer to my hon. Friend is that I will look at that matter first thing in the morning.
In short, the company has shown that it can surmount difficulties and has proved itself to be as worthy of support in today's conditions as its counterparts in Great Britain.
Nevertheless, further reductions in manpower seem inevitable at Harlands, as elsewhere. Already there has been a decline in employment to 7,700 as against 10,000 in 1974. Northern Ireland Members can recall the days when there were over 20,000 working in this shipyard.
The company is doing all it can to win new ship orders. It is also seeking suitable work outside the traditional shipbuilding field, and it has had some notable success. Diversification, however, cannot be expected in the short term to provide alternative employment for all surplus shipbuilding labour. Workers made redundant at Harlands will qualify for compensation under the special shipbuilding redundancy scheme on the same terms as workers in British Shipbuilders, and this will be of great assistance in accomplishing an orderly diminution of the work force. Nevertheless, the prospect of redundancies and uncertainty about the future inevitably has a dampening effect on morale. But, on the whole, the company remains in good heart and we must give it the chance to survive and strengthen itself for whatever opportunities the future may offer.
As hon. Members are aware, financial assistance in shipbuilding in member States is subject to the approval of the EEC Commission. The fourth directive of the EEC, introduced in April 1978, aims at preventing distortion in competition between member States as a result of national shipbuilding aids. The directive recognises that, while the crisis lasts, State aids are necessary to prevent the complete collapse of European shipbuilding.
The Government's detailed proposals for assistance to Harland and Wolff over the next two years are currently under discussion with the Commission and I have to report that the discussions are not proving easy. I am, therefore, not yet in a position to make any definitive statement about our proposals. The negotiations are continuing and we shall seek

to ensure that the company is enabled to adapt to current conditions and that its capacity to respond to future improvement in the market is maintained.

Mr. James Molyneaux: While we appreciate all that this Government have done to maintain the level of activity in the shipyards of Belfast, may I ask whether the Minister of State feels that it is intolerable that the EEC, which claims to have the interests of the peripheral regions at heart, should be an inhibiting factor upon future Government assistance? If necessary, will he seek the support of this House in any future negotiations in which he may find himself in difficulty with the EEC?

Mr. Concannon: The EEC Commission takes the view that the European shipbuilding industry must contract to a level more in line with its current, and likely future, market share. The Commission wishes to be assured that assistance provided by member States to their shipbuilding industries is linked with plans to restructure those industries to meet the changed world market situation. The proposals for assistance to Harland and Wolff are examined by the Commission in the light of this principle, as are proposals by any member State for assistance to a shipyard. The Commission has been sympathetic towards proposals for aid to Harland and Wolff in the light of the peculiar regional and political difficulties affecting employment in Northern Ireland. The Commission is questioning the latest proposals which I have put to it. Things are proving a little bit difficult and if I run into difficulties I shall seek support from the House.
I turn now to Short Brothers Ltd. The company has had a difficult few years. Trading results have been disappointing, with losses of £2·4 million. £5·4 million and £4·6 million respectively in the three years from 1975. It is not expected that its 1978 results will show an improvement. There were two main reasons for that state of affairs. One is that the company's productivity was poor, largely because of shop floor dissatisfaction with wage levels and the absence of effective incentive schemes. I am pleased to say that the introduction of a self-financing productivity scheme under phase 3 has led to a very marked improvement in output levels. Further improvement will, however, be needed if the


company is to meet its obligations to customers and exploit the potential of its products to the full.
The other major reason was that the company was going through a period of development of new products, with heavy initial outlay on design, research and development and marketing which is not recoverable until these products begin selling in numbers. It is encouraging to note that the new products are now showing signs of increasing success. The SD3-30 commuter aircraft, in particular, is now selling well after its introduction into service in 1976. To date, 38 aircraft have been sold and there is every sign that a substantial market exists. Missile sales continue to be healthy and the company's new man-portable missile Blowpipe, now in service with the British and Canadian armed forces, is attracting growing overseas interest. Short's has established itself as the major European manufacturer of jet engine pods and its prospects in this and other aerostructure work remain good. Overall, therefore, the company's longer-term position looks hopeful provided that it can produce the goods with the necessary efficiency and at competitive prices.
In the immediate future, however, the company will require Government assistance, partly to meet operating losses, partly to re-equip and partly to finance the continuing development of existing products and research into successors. Any failure to keep up with competitors in technology, or to meet the technical standards looked for by the giant aircraft corporations when they are sub-contracting or seeking partners in any venture, could lead rapidly to commercial extinction.
In my statement to the House on 7 December 1978 I announced the acceptance of the company's five-year corporate plan for the five-year period up to 31 August 1982. As hon. Members will recall, the plan sets out challenging targets in productivity, output, product quality and competitiveness, all of which will be vital to the future success of this important company. The Government are prepared to play their part in support of the company and it remains for management and work force to achieve the output and quality necessary in this sophisticated industry. I have now

looked at both companies' importance to Northern Ireland, their recent performance and market experience and their likely future development.
As hon. Members will realise from my earlier remarks, the order needs to be in place by 1 April, to take effect when the financial assistance provisions of the Shipbuilding Industry (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 expire. I believe that the order is an important one, with its objective of regulating the Government's relations with these two key companies in Northern Ireland. It provides a framework which is intended to enable these relations to be harmonious, practical and effective, and I believe it strikes a proper balance between the interests of the companies and the wider concerns of the Government and Northern Ireland. I commend it to the House.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: The Opposition agree with the Minister of State that this is an extremely important order in view of the anxious position of the principal companies to which reference is made. The companies constitute, as the explanatory document tells us, the two largest single manufacturing undertakings in Northern Ireland. We see no alternative to the continuation of financial assistance. However, I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman said that their competitive performance had to be taken into account in considering the working of the order.
Article 6 sets out the directions that the Northern Ireland Department of Commerce will be empowered to give. These are described as instructions of a general or specific character
 as to the conduct of a principal company of its undertaking ".
It would be better that such directions should be generally known at the time they are issued. Under article 6 of the order there will be no reason why the Department should make the directions public. I take the view that there could be circumstances in which the Department gives confidential instructions which emerge publicly only when they are being put into effect. These might limit informed discussion of the value of the need for these directions.
These are the principal companies in Northern Ireland. The amount of money


that we agree may be put towards their assistance is considerable. Will the Minister consider the point that directions under article 6 should be made public? Under subsections (5) and (6) of section 2 of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 the Secretary of State for Industry is required to lay an order before the House for approval by affirmative resolution when he wishes to prescribe activities to be undertaken by the British Aerospace corporation and British Shipbuilders. Should not some provision be made for public scrutiny of directions issued by the Government in Northern Ireland in this case? I hope that the Minister will consider that a reasonable point.
As to the cost of these directions, the Minister may know that the White Paper of March 1978 on the nationalised industries, Cmnd. 7137, suggested that extra costs incurred by nationalised industries as a result of Government direction should be shown separately in the accounts of each industry. It might be worth urging that consideration be given to adopting this principle in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will think that reasonable.
Apparently, the grants given specifically to Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers are in future to be included in the Appropriation orders for Northern Ireland. I think the Minister mentioned that. The House will wish to know the extent to which the grants are needed to carry out the directions from the Government. I think that the Minister agrees with that point.
On the question of Government subsidies generally, in Great Britain it is customary to publish the amount of the subsidies given when a new order is secured by the shipbuilding industry. The practice should be extended to Northern Ireland. I do not think that it applies at the moment. Perhaps the Minister will consider that.
The Minister referred to annual reports. There is an important point about annual reports in article 12. He mentioned the various documents set out in that article which will have to be produced for consideration. It might be a good idea to add to what is proposed in the order a provision that there should be a review

of the company's performance—he mentioned the competitive performance of the companies as a matter to be taken into account—similar to those produced in Great Britain by British Shipbuilders and British Aerospace under section 5 of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. That is done simply to bring the practice into line with what is being done in Great Britain. I hope that the Minister will consider that a reasonable point. There is no need to set it down specifically. However, a review of the company's performance would be valuable.
We shall want at some time a clear statement on the phased reduction of the work force at Harland and Wolff, which is now taking place, to establish how many jobs will be left when the rationalisation is complete, what size labour force is in view for the long term, and what will be the numbers after the shipbuilding redundancy scheme has taken effect.
The recently published discussion document on economic and social progress in Northern Ireland was referred to in the previous debate. It was prepared by the central economic service of the Department of Finance. It states that opportunities to diversify production into structural steel, motor cycle accessories and so forth are being sought. I have often questioned the Minister about diversification. Could he say whether this search is likely to yield any important results this year?
In 1978 the Minister announced an agreement between Harland and Wolff and a firm of mining engineers in Munich which saved 400 jobs. That was very welcome. Has the Minister any further projects of similar importance in hand that he could tell us about?
Finally, I refer to the question of naval orders, which I raised in the Appropriation debate on 11 December last. Has any progress been made there? The Minister said at that time in this House that he would consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about that. It will be remembered that it was suggested that some naval work of refitting ships which had been built at Harland and Wolff could be turned over to that yard. Will the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State for Defence has been able to help in that regard?

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Harold McCusker: Many people in the House, and in Northern Ireland and further afield, will be grateful that the Minister broke with his usual procedure and gave us a very full review of the performances of the two companies, which represent the first and third largest employers of labour in the Province and, therefore, as he has emphasised, are of major significance to the economy and the employment prospects of the Province.
Although one was looking for encouragement and was able to pick up some crumbs of encouragement from the report which the Minister has given us, one must nevertheless be realistic and to reflect sombrely on the fact that Harland and Wolff will still require subsidy to enable it even to compete still for orders, and will therefore be obtaining uneconomic orders in the foreseeable future. Short Brothers and Harland, despite the favourable reporting in the press of its success in selling a small commuter aircraft, will still be working at a loss for the foreseeable future. It certainly cannot be in the interest of the Province, in the interest of Belfast or in the interest of the employees of those two companies to be in that loss-making position for the foreseeable future.
The fact that the largest company in Northern Ireland is 100 per cent. publicly owned, and that the third largest company is 70 per cent. publicly owned, must give us all pause for thought.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has said that his party acknowledges that these two companies must be kept in being, and that public funds will be required for that purpose, but we have to ask how long we can go on doing this. How long will it be necessary? I hope that it will not be necessary.
As the Minister has indicated, when world markets change, if we can make ourselves sufficiently efficient and sufficiently competitive and meet the quality standards that he has indicated, the two companies eventually will be viable and profitable. That is where the future must lie. From what the Minister has said, the work forces in the two companies now seem to realise that. If those two companies are virtually 100 per cent. publicly

controlled, it is quite proper that the Government should bring forward an order to establish a structure and a procedure for dealing with them.
If ever a case could be made for publishing proposals for a draft order before a draft order, that case was made with this draft order, because there are substantial improvements in the draft as compared with the proposals for the draft. For example, in article 6 of the proposals for the draft it was stated:
 The Department may give directions of a general or specific character as to the conduct by a principal company or its undertaking ".
That was virtually an open door for any interference which the Department of Commerce might have wanted in the affairs of the two companies. The aim is that those two companies are to become profitable and viable. The one sure way in which that would not be achieved would be if the Department of Commerce could interfere in every aspect of their working. I welcome the fact that article 6 now states that
 The Department may give directions of a general character ".
The word "specific" has been removed, and those directions of a general character are limited to directions
 in relation to matters which appear to the Department to affect the public interest.
I think that that is proper and correct and that it should prevent any of the abuses to which I have just referred.
There was good news this morning in the press about the order that BP has placed for six medium speed engines with the joint subsidiary, Harland-MAN. Article 6 of the order states:
 The Department may give directions of a general character…It shall be the duty of a principal company…to secure so far as appropriate, that each of its wholly owned subsidiaries also gives effect to any such directions ".
Does that mean that in relation to the joint company, which is not a wholly-owned subsidiary and which encompasses the engine works of Harland and Wolff, the Department of Commerce would give directions as to the percentage owned by Harland and Wolff and that the company would have to implement those directions while the engine works which are part of the other organisation would be exempt? I should be interested to know how the


relationship will work in the context of the order.
Another substantial improvement is clear when the original proposed article 10 is compared with the new article 10. The proposed article 10, dealing with certain ancillary duties of the Department of Commerce, stated that the Department's function was to encourage the promotion of industrial democracy in the undertakings of the principal companies and their subsidiaries. The draft with which we are dealing encourages
 the principal companies to promote industrial democracy in their undertakings ".
That is a significant step forward. If there is to be greater participation in those companies and greater industrial democracy, it is better that the companies should have the duty of promoting industrial democracy and not, as was envisaged in the original proposal, that the Department of Commerce should take the lead.
I hope that no effort will be made to force the workers to participate in a scheme in which they are not interested. Certain attempts have been made to encourage the Harland and Wolff work force to participate in a scheme of industrial democracy. However, the work force have said that they do not wish to participate. I hope that it will continue in that way. When the work force wish to avail themselves of the opportunity, with a system and a structure which suits them, that will be the time to move. I hope that there will be no coercion.
The new order is more beneficial than the original order, in which the provision dealing with the relationship of the two Northern Ireland companies to British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders was too vague. It referred to the consultation and attempts being made to co-ordinate the activities of our two companies with the major corporations. We welcome the new draft which specifically lays down that it is the duty of the Department of Commerce
 to consult with appropriate United Kingdom Government Departments with regard to any measures necessary to co-ordinate the activities of 
Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers
 with those of British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders ".
We wished Harland and Wolff to be part of British Shipbuilders and Short Brothers to be part of British Aerospace.

Our wish was not granted, but the order makes the relationship as close as possible.
When does the Minister hope to lay
 a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph (2) 
before the House? Does the Minister believe that, whatever we have one day in Northern Ireland, it will be anything like the Assembly mentioned in the order? How long will that myth be perpetuated? If we have to say something, can we not at least stop referring to a body which the Government know will never return? That is my only real criticism of the order, but I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the queries that I have raised.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: The one part of the Minister's speech that I welcomed was that which said that these two State-owned industries are to come under closer scrutiny of the House. However, I would not want the right hon. Gentleman to think that his promise that we shall we able to discuss the industries on Appropriation orders or the fact that we are to have the accounts before us will be sufficient. The House has the ultimate responsibility for the industries and we cannot be expected to put up with so little scrutiny of companies which are increasingly coming to the taxpayer to be allowed to continue in existence.
The Minister of State will know that the order applies to the two companies in terms of the financial assistance that they are to receive, ministerial control over them and the way that they account for their actions. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said in the debate on the Appropriation order that the Comptroller and Auditor-General was already making useful contributions on certain industries in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman picked out particularly the SD3-30 aircraft project of Shorts. The Comptroller and Auditor-General is indeed producing a new form of scrutiny, but the scrutiny provided for in the order is not adequate for the House or for the taxpayer whose money always has to be taken to put into whatever companies are deemed worthy by Governments. Hon. Members, as representatives of the taxpayer, must insist


that the Government bear the taxpayer more in mind.
The Minister of State will be aware that last year's White Paper on the nationalised industries agreed with the NEDO report that much more information must be made available to the Parliament and, thus, to the public if the lack of accountability between nationalised industries and Parliament were to be made good. If any hon. Member is interested, I suggest that he should read paragraph 29 on page 19 of the White Paper under the heading "Monitoring". I shall read only the first sentence which says:
 It is the responsibility of each board to monitor performance and efficiency within its industry but the Government agrees that it is also essential for the industries to account effectively to Parliament and to the public.
It is indeed important that Governments should report to Parliament and the public. That is the burden of my remarks.
I should declare an interest since I have worked for Short Brothers and Harland and have had a long association with the firm for many years. I am also a member of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, so I have had the opportunity to see nationalised companies from both sides.
Since 1976, Short's has been in the red and has needed financial assistance to keep it in existence. The Government have given it an investment programme of £60 million to cover the next three years and I hope that that sum will not only be adequate for the major capital re-equipment programme for which it is earmarked, but will cover the additional funds that I believe that the firm will need when its present product range becomes too old to continue to produce orders.
The Minister of State knows as well as I do that the SD3-30 is a derivative of the Skyvan, which has been around for quite a number of years. Two airframes will not carry Short Brothers and Harland very far into the future. More money will be required if it is to continue to be an aircraft manufacturer manufacturing its own aeroplanes.
By the same token, Seacat and Tigercat are missiles that belong to another generation. They, too, are coming to the end of their effective lives. Looking at Short Brothers' future, we see two ageing air-frames

and only one new product—the Blowpipe missile—to carry it into the next decade. Although we know that the firm is one of the largest manufacturers of pods for aero-engines in the world, I wonder whether there will be enough work on pods for the present work force.
Therefore, the firm's future requires more than just a three-year investment grant to carry it forward. It needs deep and important forward thinking. The Government must share some of their thoughts about Short Brothers with Parliament.
The situation at Harland and Wolff is much more serious. Its financial position can be described only as parlous. The chairman of the company made no secret of the fact in the annual report, where he pointed out that
 in order to maintain production at a satisfactory level, new orders must be obtained. We cannot expect to obtain a sufficiency of such orders at prices other than which will result in losses and in these circumstances therefore, whether or not we obtain a satisfactory level of work, losses are likely to continue for a number of years to come ".
How many years to come? How different that statement is from the statement made by the the then Minister of State on 1 August 1975, in the debate on taking the company into State holding. I was present during the debate, when he said:
 I have spoken today and on previous occasions about the last chance, about there being no bottomless pit of public money and about the need for the company to demonstrate long before 1979 its ability to take on new work without loss—and I have said that if the company cannot do this it will be time for the Government to call a halt and to permit the rundown and even closure of the business ".—[Official Report, 1 August 1975; Vol. 896, c. 2480.]
I do not doubt that the Minister meant those words when he said them, but, by goodness, he has been wrong. If we want an example of the danger of Ministers and Departments trying to set themselves up as industrial prophets, it is surely in that statement.
I even thought that the Minister of State tonight was a little optimistic. Mr. Ronald Punt's own words to the work force in February were:
 Our performance during 1978 was bad compared with what we have done in the past—our productivity fell and our programme slipped badly…It is up to each one of us to do his best, and the first step is to come here for eight hours a day and to work effectively


for those eight hours…We can meet our delivery dates and get more orders, but not easily. It needs all of us to do it. If we don't, maybe no outsider will close us—they won't need to; we'll be doing it for them.
That is straight talking, and it is rather different from what the Minister said. It is a managing director telling the members of his work force that the company's salvation is in their hands but that they are not grappling with the situation that faces them.

Mr. Concannon: I was in the Harland and Wolff shipyard yesterday with Mr. Ronnie Punt. I saw the film that he had put out, and I talked to all the shop stewards in that yard. I backed the comments that Mr. Punt had made. As I said earlier, since 1974 there has been no serious stoppage of any kind within the yard. Industrial relations are pretty good there. The members of the work force know what they have to do. They know that only they can save jobs in the yard. They are Harland and Wolff. That message has been put over to them, and they are responding. The shipyard is a different place from what it was five or six years ago.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I have no desire to argue or to contradict anything he said. What I really want to say refers rather to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) about accountability. I want to know how long we shall continue to treat the nationalised industries of Northern Ireland differently from the nationalised industries of Scotland, Wales or England.
I see no reason why Short's, Harland and Wolff, Ulster Omnibus or any other nationalised industry in Northern Ireland should not come under the scrutiny of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in this country. There is no special quality about those industries which sets them apart. But, at the moment, they come under no direct scrutiny from that Select Committee, set up by Parliament to look into the workings of the nationalised industries. Why should we expect to be able to interview British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders, question them closely and carry out in-depth inquiries into the way they handle their businesses while Short's and Harland and Wolff are kept sacrosanct and free from that sort of scrutiny?
I want to remind the Minister of State, if he does not already know, that to obtain the annual reports of those two State owned companies from the House of Commons Library is a very difficult task, as I have found in the last fortnight. Of the two, Harland and Wolff's report was the first to come. Short Brothers' report came this morning after a fortnight of requests from the House of Commons Library. I do not know what sort of world those companies think they are living in. I can only tell those who run them that, if they want the taxpayer to provide financial assistance, they should supply the information for the taxpayers' representatives to know how they are managing their affairs.
I hope that the Minister will make clear to those two companies that they have a responsibility, if not to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, then at least to the House of Commons, to ensure that their reports and accounts are placed in the Library.
I find a certain irony in the fact that as a member of that Select Committee I was taking part only this afternoon in our current inquiry into the relationship between Ministers, Parliament and nationalised industries about such matters as specific directions, accountability and the relationship of industries with Parliament. In this order, those companies are outside that scrutiny. In this order, there is no requirement and no need for those companies to put before this House the sort of information that we should be given. I am perhaps unfair. The order points out that the information is to be placed before the Assembly.
I have asked the House of Commons Library to check with the Northern Ireland Office. I am told that the obligation in article 12 of the order to lay accounts before the Assembly means that for the time being the companies are obliged to lay their accounts before the House of Commons. The Department of Commerce in Northern Ireland is for the time being a sub-section of the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland answers questions on Short Brothers. It has been suggested in this debate that it is time to end this nonsense. Is it not time we stopped imagining that there is to be an Assembly? Is it not time that the report and accounts were placed before the


House of Commons and we did away with all that palaver?
I cannot allow this debate to pass without asking the Government whether it would be better, before asking for large sums of money for these two industries, to use the affirmative resolution method to do so. Can the Government expect article 3 to be treated as a matter that only has to appear in the Appropriation debate? Can the House of Commons, Parliament and the taxpayer be expected to find millions of pounds for these companies without giving Parliament the chance to debate the amount of money, why it has to be spent and for what period it is intended to underwrite the future of these companies? Surely, if financial assistance is to be provided, Parliament should always have the chance to debate that assistance before it is given. After so many ill-starred projects, which Governments have so frequently supported over past decades, is there not a more pressing requirement to insist that there should be no financial assistance without Parliamentary scrutiny?
Sir Peter Parker recently told our committee that bringing British Rail's report and accounts to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries was the equivalent of a shareholders' meeting for the chairman of a nationalised industry. All nationalised industries need those shareholders' meetings. Short's and Harland and Wolff are perhaps more in need of that sort of accountability than other industries I know.
I hope that the Minister will therefore take those comments from this debate and remind the relevant directors, managing directors and chairmen of what I have said.
I end with another comment from Mr. Punt. We should remember this because we are sometimes apt to think that we can make companies profitable, although those who run them cannot, and that we know what they should be doing when those who run them do not. In that address to the work force, he said:
 I can almost hear some of you saying, ' The Government must do something '. Yes, they can do something, and I think they want to and will do something, but they can only help us, they cannot solve our problems, only we can do that.

He is right. We can provide the financial assistance. But let us be sure before we do it that we know what we are doing.

12.21 a.m.

Mr. William Craig: These two important firms are in my constituency, and I am greatly encouraged by the speeches so far. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I endorse substantially everything that he has said in one of the most realistic speeches that I have heard for a long time. It is easy to give way to pessimism in the situation that faces the shipbuilding world. I am glad that there is no sign of any hon. Member, and particularly the Government, doing so. Both these companies can survive and play a worthwhile role in the economy of Northern Ireland, provided that everyone concerned faces the fact.
I have no hang-ups about public ownership: I do not see it as a matter for doctrinaire politics. Public ownership has played and can play a useful part in any economy. But the one thing for which I have no time is the concept of public ownership that allows itself to be run by politicians, Government Departments and the like. Public ownership should ensure that the companies stand on their own feet—management and work force negotiating as they would in private enterprise.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) drew attention to the improvements which have been made in the order. I am not entirely satisfied with the order as it is, but at least I can support it with an easier conscience, because as originally proposed it smacked of the desire of Government Departments to interfere too much with the management of the firms. We are very appreciative of the fact that our views were considered and that there has been a considerable improvement.
I share my hon. Friend's views about articles 6 and 10. I am a great believer in industrial democracy, particularly if it will help us to get away from the adversarial feeling between management and work force. But this is something to be achieved by management and work force, not decided in a Government Department


or even a Parliament. Each industry will work out what is best suited to its own needs.
It is unfortunate that the Government feel that they have to put a political point like this into a statutory obligation. I do not know how I am going to hold the Minister or his successors accountable in this respect or discover whether they are discharging their duties to encourage industrial democracy or what the order really means by industrial democracy. The important thing is that the order now recognises that it is for the company to promote the industrial democracy and for the Department to encourage it.
Article 10(b) is a considerable improvement. I can report from first-hand experience of the work force that there is considerable anxiety that there may not be effective co-operation and liaison with British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders. I have no doubt that in assuming this obligation the Department will help to allay those fears. But I should have liked some indication of how the Department sees this co-ordination and liaison. I feel that it is not enough for the appropriate Government Departments to discuss the matter. There should be liaison at all levels. The directors in these companies should be talking with the directors of British Shipbuilders and British Aerospace. Further, the trade unions in these important firms should have a link with what is happening in the two corporations.
Every time I meet the workers I am questioned about how the undertaking that was given in an earlier debate will be fulfilled. I hope that the Minister of State will take the opportunity of spelling out how the co-ordination and liaison will occur.
I shall not dwell too much on article 12 and the Assembly. If anyone believes that the ill-fated power sharing Assembly will come back into being, he is living in cloud-cuckoo land. But I believe that there will be some sort of parliamentary Assembly in the very near future, and in that respect I hope that article 12 envisages a continuing development for a new type of democratic Assembly, rather than harking back to the past. But it is a constitutional necessity, and I should not dwell too much on the point.
I was interested in the Minister's report on Harland and Wolff, particularly about industrial relations. I believe that things are improving, but I suspect that they are not improving fast enough. I suspect that there is probably a lack of confidence. Whether the Minister and his Department can do anything to provide that confidence I do not know. But I know that the protracted arbitration about the two bulk carriers seems to be proceeding far too slowly. This uncertainty must be removed as speedily as possible. Once that cloud is lifted from the yard there will be greater progress in securing more effective use of the manpower in the yard.
I am pleased that some progress has been made with diversification, but it is only tiny, and I suspect that events in the yard now are limiting the opportunities for diversification.
I welcome the improvement in the engine works, but associated with the engine works is the foundry. I understand that the foundry is in a delicate state. It might survive as a viable unit. The possession of a good modern foundry is an asset when one is seeking diversification. I hope that steps will be taken to assure those employed in the foundry that it is not the intention of the company or of the Government to see the yard without a foundry.
I am considerably heartened by the progress made at Short Brothers. The company is still in the red, but there is a new dynamic approach, both by management and by labour, that is sure to bring a reward in the near future. The hon. Member for Newbury made a valid point. The sum of £60 million for three years is not enough to enable management to plan far into the future and particularly to develop new products.
What people think are facts but which are not can sometimes be just as damaging as facts. I know that from time to time workers feel that management is hiding behind the Department and that certain things do not happen because the Department is standing in the way. Perhaps there is a grain of truth in that. Perhaps the Civil Service procedures are too slow and too cumbersome to take commercial decisions. I am thinking in particular of the Britten-Norman project which, if Short Brothers had been able to acquire it, would have been a useful


base for widening the range of its products, and establishing contacts with a new range of customers.
Some people will say that because the Government took so long in assessing the prospects we missed the opportunity. I have been assured by the Minister that that is not the case. But he must be aware that no matter how often one repeats assurances the suspicion is still there that commercial decision-taking is affected because of the need to work so closely with the Department. I hope that there will be positive evidence that management is really free to manage and does not have to have commercial decisions rubber-stamped by the Department.
I was recently in Norway on a Western European Union visit and I was fortunate to meet Her Majesty's ambassador in Oslo. I was delighted to hear that the Minister and his Department have their eyes on prospects in Norway and I hope that he will keep up the pressure.
Harland and Wolff has had a long and happy history of good business and good relationships with Norway. I believe that Norway can provide us with opportunities for more than ships. I met one Norwegian admiral who spoke in glowing terms of Skyvan. He had, unfortunately, never heard of the SD3-30. I hope that when the Minister builds up this campaign and the contacts with Norway he will bear in mind that within that country there are three feeder airlines. I believe that this aircraft would suit them admirably.

Mr. Concannon: I am pleased to hear the remarks by the right hon. Gentleman about Norway. He understands that I was about to pay a visit there when unfortunately the industrial relations problems in Northern Ireland precluded that visit. That is the second visit which has had to be cancelled at short notice, but it is now back on my itinerary. Some of the problems in Northern Ireland act to prevent me from moving about on occasion.

Mr. Craig: I understand that, and I am not criticising the Minister. I may disagree with him on some issues, but I compliment him on his energy and drive in this matter. The whole of Northern Ireland admires the way he throws himself into his work.
I spoke to the ambassador to the Court of St. James from South Korea. He is seriously thinking of visiting Northern Ireland in the near future. I hope that the Minister will ensure that that visit takes place and that the ambassador visits East Belfast, Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers. We have sold marine engines to South Korea and we should be able to sell aircraft engines. I am not suggesting that the Department takes over the sales and marketing responsibility of the companies, but it could open many doors.
The Minister knows of the serious disparity in wage levels between workers in Short's and in the rest of the British aerospace industry. I understand that the matter is to be investigated by an industrial court. It is an unhappy truth that the work force at Short's has suffered more severely from Government incomes policies than any other industry that I can think of. We have got over one hurdle and that has helped the firm considerably.
I hope that the present incomes policy will not stand in the way of correcting the serious unfairness. I cannot ask the Minister to make any pronouncements in advance of the findings of the industrial court, but if this is stowed up to much, stresses and strains will be imposed on the work force to its long-term disadvantage. We must keep the skills in the firm. I am anxious lest there is a drift away from the firm.
I have pleasure in supporting the order, in spite of its deficiencies. I hope that we shall make good progress.

12.37 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We have tonight illustrated some of the iniquities of direct rule. At this early morning hour we are discussing two of Northern Ireland's greatest industries. More and more, Northern Ireland affairs are pushed as an appendix to the business of the House. I disagree with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I hope that the business of Northern Ireland will soon be out of this House and that Northern Ireland men and women will be able to scrutinise their own affairs. I hope and pray that that day will come speedily.
I am not pessimistic as the hon. Member for Newbury is. He said that a


Northern Ireland Parliament will never come, that we are doomed to being a semi-colonial State and that our business will be tacked on at the end of the day when the House is empty of all but those who have a constituency interest and those such as the hon. Member who have shown a continued interest in Northern Ireland.
I am happy that the Minister of State presented the order tonight. Some of his colleagues might not have had such a good reception in the House. We might at times disagree with the Minister of State but he has without doubt given of his time, talents and energy to bring industry and employment to Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland appreciate that. They see that he is at least doing his best in difficult circumstances to keep employment in Northern Ireland. Perhaps those words, coming from a severe critic of his Government, will give him some little solace in his task. I mean them, of course, not as a kiss of death. He is all right at this time.
There are some points to be underlined in the context of the order, and one of them has been seriously raised already. Many people in Northern Ireland have a suspicion that the reason why these two industries were not brought into the British family was that the British Government hoped that some day a Parliament in Northern Ireland would have to take the sad decision and announce the end of public financing of the companies, the idea being that that terrible act would be imputed not to this House but to a future Parliament in Northern Ireland.
That suspicion is held by many, and it is certainly in my mind, because many of us thought—I know that the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) did not agree with us—that the answer lay in another direction. I say this in response to what was said by the hon. Member for Newbury. If these two industries had been in the British family, the scrutiny procedures of the House could have been brought into play and they would have been subject to all the tests to which the hon. Gentleman rightly says they should be subject. I am in full agreement with the view that where public money is put into any company Parliament should exercise its right to scrutinise, to question and to probe in

order to satisfy itself as to the use made of that investment.

Mr. Craig: Will the hon. Gentleman be a little more precise? Is he saying that, in the event of the return to a parliamentary institution in Northern Ireland, these two important industries should not be under the supervision and direction of the Government of Northern Ireland?

Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying exactly the opposite, that if we have a Parliament in Northern Ireland and we take over the responsibility, that Parliament will have to shoulder it, but in shouldering the responsibility that Parliament would be in a position to do with these companies in the scrutiny of their operations what the Select Committee here is able to do in respect of the British nationalised industries at present.
That is an important matter. Indeed, the whole business of accountability of all Government projects in Northern Ireland is seriously deficient or in abeyance now, for the simple reason that no Member from Northern Ireland is on the Public Accounts Committee and there is no proper scrutiny of accounts from Northern Ireland. We have had scandals in the Housing Executive, and heaven knows how many other scandals have gone undiscovered because there has been no public accountability in this House and no probing by Northern Ireland Members who know something about what happens there. Therefore, when the hon. Member for Newbury stresses that matter, he is stressing something on which I am with him 100 per cent.
The Minister of State said that in Appropriation debates we should have an opportunity to discuss these matters, but we should have only such a discussion as we are having tonight, and it would be useless and fruitless. We could all make our speeches, for 15 minutes or so at a time, and after one and a half hours the Minister would say "I am sorry that I cannot answer all hon. Members now. They did not give me notice of all their questions. But I shall be writing to them."
My experience is that, even if we give the Minister time to answer, he never answers anyway, so one might as well save one's time, because he has to write.


Sometimes, indeed, the notes which are passed to him are not accurate. We had an example of that in the previous debate, when the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) caught the Minister out completely on one of the notes which had been sent to him.
These two industries are at the very heart of our economy. Although there were some crumbs of comfort in what the Minister said, and although I appreciate everything that he said, if these two industries are not able by their own efforts to withdraw from the precipice towards which they are heading, I can see darkness at the end of the tunnel. The workers in these two industries and the people of Northern Ireland in general should note that.
As the right hon. Member for Belfast, East said, the parity of the wages of workers in these industries with the wages of other workers is important. If workers in these industries are not paid the rate for the job, the best men will go to firms which pay the proper rate. Tonight we must face the fact that these two great industries which are essential to the economic wellbeing of our community are in jeopardy and that what is happening tonight is a mere holding operation. The Government hope that there will be an upturn in the world economy and that in some way these two industries will become viable.
The hon. Member for Newbury asked the important question as to how long this process would continue. In a previous debate the Minister said that there was not a bottomless purse. There is thus incontrovertible evidence that an effort must be made to bring business to these important companies. The sad thing about Harland and Wolff is the court cases which are pending. These should be resolved as quickly as possible.
May I stress once again that the fact that we have only one and a half hours in which to debate an important matter concerning the entire welfare of Northern Ireland is one of the iniquities of direct rule. Northern Ireland Members are of the firm opinion that we should have ample time to discuss these matters. I am glad that the Minister took the time tonight to set out important facts about these industries. I hope that it will be possible to find a better way of discussing

the financing of these two important industries than on an order such as this. We do not want to hinder Harland and Wolff. We want to help the company and to enable it to continue to enjoy our admiration.
Let it be remembered, above all, that these industries are working under the stress of present economic circumstances and under the stress of terrorism. The work force and management of those businesses which have kept going in the face of terrorism should be congratulated. However, they must proceed to achieve viability and stand on their legs and not be propped up by the Government.

12.50 a.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I regret to say that I am participating in what can only be described as a political and parliamentary charade. In the early hours of the morning I have been told that I have two minutes in which to deal with two of the most important industries in Northern Ireland, the shipbuilding and aircraft industries. It is a disgrace that the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland are expected to deal with such important topics in this way. These industries are vital to so many people, particularly in Belfast. We are debating this subject in an almost empty House, with six hon. Members representing Northern Ireland present and a few others to make up weight, one of them waiting to take part in the Adjournment debate.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) took up the remark of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that there would never be an Assembly in Northern Ireland. I have heard such talk often enough from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and his colleagues. They take every opportunity to block the chance to re-create a Stormont Parliament. I believe that we shall have a Stormont Parliament. If I did not so believe I do not think that I could stay much longer in this House. The Ulster people want and need a Stormont Parliament.
I pay tribute to the Minister for his activities in trying to bring industry to Northern Ireland. I have often castigated him in the past and it is right that I should pay tribute to him now. What


we need is a Stormont Cabinet actively concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland, trying to reduce unemployment. I also pay tribute to the shipyard and aircraft workers in Belfast. During the past few years they have striven gallantly to keep these two firms alive and viable. This is in stark contrast to the sordid episode involving Mr. Hoppe, who managed, with the consent of the former Stormont and the then Conservative Government, to secure a cast-iron contract. This enabled him to have his salary paid tax-free to a Swiss bank account. He was also able to claim compensation which has made him richer by about £200,000—paid into a Swiss bank account. Yet the workers, doing a good job and using their skills, have to fight for increases at a time of inflation.
The Minister is looking at me. He is waiting to reply to the debate. In the name of the Ulster people I protest at this restriction on the rights of Ulster representatives to probe and question the Government of the day. The same thing happened to me on the debate on the Appropriation order earlier. My remarks were cut short because the debate had to end at a fixed time. I would not like the Minister or the House to think that, because I have said only a few words, I am not critical of the present direct rule position. I know that the Minister understands this. I would like the House to understand that I am making way for the Minister but I do so under protest.

12.55 a.m.

Mr. Concannon: I accept the protest. I am more worried about the words that have been used about me personally. I do not know whether it is a backhanded way of getting rid of me. I am thinking that I may be short of a job tomorrow if the news gets about.
I shall answer some of the general issues that have been raised in the short time that remains. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not refer to hon. Members and identify their constituencies.
As I said in my opening remarks, I could have done what I wished to do for Harland and Wolff merely by extending the order. However, we have taken on board some of the complaints made by hon. Members about scrutiny. By introducing the order we have ensured that there will be more detailed scrutiny. I

envisage that we shall have a debate at least once a year on the two companies that have been the subject of the debate. I support that approach.

Mr. Kilfedder: The debates will be how long?

Mr. Concannon: I think that Northern Ireland Members had a fair run on the Appropriation order. There was almost a full day's debate. Some of speeches were extensive even for Northern Ireland Members.
We must remember that the annual reports and accounts of the two companies carry a report from the chairmen. I emphasise that they are joint stock companies. They are subject to the Companies Acts. They are not nationalised corporations in the sense of that term. They are single companies and not conglomerates. They are more the equivalent of Cable and Wireless Ltd. than of nationalised industries. The intention was to bring them under greater scrutiny. It was also the intention to bring them as far as possible within the parent Act as it applies within the rest of the United Kingdom.
I do not want to mention the size of the work force that we require at Harland and Wolff or to talk about phased rundowns. I told the representatives of the work force of Harland and Wolff yesterday that the workers will determine the size of the work force by giving the Secretary of State or myself the scope to seek orders for the yard. The more work that we can get for the yard, the larger the work force that we shall keep employed. I do not envisage a target number of employees. Certainly that will not be the approach at Short Brothers. The idea is to increase the size of the work force as Short Brothers. Much depends on what the Government, the management and the work force can achieve for the yard.
Industrial democracy is sought by the Harland and Wolff work force. It has decided which way it wants to go. There is one stage that has not yet been accepted. I discussed these matters with representatives of the company some time ago as I thought that there might be ways in which help could be given at Government level. I was told by the trade union movement that that was not so and that


I had done all that it had asked of me. I was told that it would pick up the remaining stages of industrial democracy when it was ready.
It is not my intention to go to Short Brothers and to say that this, that and the other must be done on the industrial relations front. That would be wrong. These issues cannot be forced. Movement on industrial democracy must come from the work force and the board. The Government do not intend to try to run the companies.
Some hon. Members have referred to liaison with British Shipbuilders and British Aerospace and the rumours that are being spread. The House should remember that if the order is agreed to there will be an extra £60 million going to Short Brothers over a five-year plan, not a three-year plan. That will be a rolling programme for Short Brothers. The company will be returning to the Government and we shall be reconsidering our approach. On that basis it is clear that liaison with British Shipbuilders and British Aerospace is taking place at all levels. That applies at governmental, departmental, trade union and management levels. Bearing in mind the state of the order book and what I have been able to say today, that approach is working in our favour.
All major parties in Northern Ireland still regard a form of devolution for the Province as a major plank. I am seeking to protect the statute book of Northern Ireland for the future when the people of Northern Ireland will decide what to do with the two firms. We all agree that they form a major part of industry in the Province. I am sure that Northern Ireland Members want the statute book protected. If some form of devolved government came along, I am sure that they would not want people on this side of the water to be running the companies or deciding what they should do. That power would be better placed in the hands of the Northern Ireland people and the Executive of Northern Ireland.
I hope that I have covered most of the general issues. If I have not, I am sorry. I shall write to hon. Members as soon as possible to take up the matters that I have omitted in replying to the debate.

The order is beneficial not only to the shipyard but—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 7 February, be approved.

BODMIN CROWN COURT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Evans.]

1 a.m.

Mr. Robert Hicks: I am grateful to the Minister for being here at 1 o'clock in the morning to answer on this important local issue, especially in view of his unfortunate family circumstances.
It is an inescapable fact that Bodmin is located at the geographical centre of Cornwall. That is the logical place for a Crown court to be situated if it is to serve the county efficiently and fairly. Indeed, it was for this reason that Cornwall successfully petitioned Parliament for Bodmin to be established as the centre for the Crown court, so that in 1836 Parliament acknowledged this need and passed an Act for the building of the shire hall—that is, the Bodmin courthouse—and the shire house, which is the judges' lodgings.
I think it relevant to point out that it was the county of Cornwall, and not the town of Bodmin alone, that petitioned Parliament for the court to be established in Bodmin as the most appropriate location for justice to be brought to the people, rather than their having to seek justice elsewhere. This situation has persisted to the present day. All concerned, whether they be judges, barristers, solicitors, witnesses, or jurymen, as well as administrators, have found this arrangement totally satisfactory. This did not, however, prevent the Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions from recommending that the location of the first tier centre of justice in Cornwall should be moved from Bodmin to Truro.


The reasons for this recommendation are, in my view, both thin and dubious.
The Lord Chancellor, in his letter to me dated 30 November 1978, gave seven reasons to justify his support of the recommendation. I wish to deal with each of these in turn. I hope to convince the House that the arguments that the Lord Chancellor outlined on that occasion are not substantive.
The first reason the Lord Chancellor gave was that the greater weight of the population to be served by the court lies to the south and west of Truro. I contend that this reason is not founded on fact. According to the county council's financial statistics, the three westernmost district authorities within Cornwall have a larger population than the three eastern districts, but by only 3,000. The point, surely, is that the population of the eastern half of the county, namely, the district councils covered by Restormel, North Cornwall and Caradon, are growing at a faster rate than the western half. By the mid-1980s, when this new court house is intended to be constructed, the balance of population could have swung the other way.
The second reason given was that the great majority of the work of the Crown court originated from the area south and west of Bodmin. This is debatable. There is the fear, which I think is shared by all the people of Cornwall irrespective of their views on this issue, that to move the court to Truro could well result in a greater part of the work for the eastern half of Cornwall being taken at Plymouth or Exeter, thus moving justice away from the people of Cornwall.
The third reason given was the fact that
 Truro lies on the main railway line to Penzance and Falmouth ".
I do not see what relevance this has, because people living in Cornwall who have to attend the courts in any capacity have to travel by car rather than by train, because there is virtually no local train service anyway. For those judges and counsel who travel by train from London or Bristol, or perhaps Exeter, Truro would involve an additional 45 to 60 minutes travelling time each way.
The fourth reason given is that

 Truro is situated at the junction of several main roads which give ready access to the other parts of Cornwall and to the A30 trunk road ".
That may or may not be so, except, of course, that Truro is situated some distance from the A30 trunk road, but it does not alter the fact that Bodmin is situated at the geographical centre of the county. Anyone who knows the county—I mean no disrespect here to the Lord Chancellor, but I sensed that there was a lack of knowledge of the local geography—knows that Bodmin is located at the junction of the A30 and A38 trunk roads. I should not have thought it possible to get a better road communication network than that if one tried.
The fifth reason given was that
 Truro is the seat of the county council and the centre of other main services serving the county.
Again, I am not quite sure what relevance this has to the location of the Crown court. The fact that the county council is in Truro and that there is a new district general hospital there is accepted, but I thought we lived in an age of decentralisation, and I certainly would not accept the argument that devolution in relation to Cornwall ends at Truro.
The sixth reason given was that the court buildings at Bodmin were built in the 1830s and that to bring them up to necessary standard would involve considerable cost. I intend to return to the aspect of cost in a moment.
The seventh reason stated was that
 The District Registry of the High Court is situated in Truro.
I have been informed, by people who are concerned and involved locally, that the existing combined Crown court centre at Bodmin has been a success and operates efficiently, giving satisfaction to the legal profession.
I now turn to the crucial and decisive aspect of the financial cost. The Solicitor-General, in a written answer to me, stated that
 The cost of building a new court centre at Truro is estimated at approximately £2·5 million at current prices."—[Official Report, 12 December 1978; Vol. 960, c. 95.]
That figure in itself seems to me to be high and totally unjustified. What also worries me is that at the present time six Crown courts are at present under


construction in other parts of the country and that the cost span there extends from over £3 million to £26·8 million. I accept that Liverpool, at £26·8 million, may be a special case, but a lot of money is involved. When it is admitted that any new court at Truro is not likely to be built until the 1980s, I should have thought that the Solicitor-General's estimate of £2½ million is likely to be exceeded fairly substantially. It is difficult to justify this at a time of economic crisis for our nation, and at a time when there is an undisputed need for financial restraint. I do not believe that the case has been made for this vast expenditure of public money. If the Lord Chancellor's Department has that surplus amount of money available the Public Accounts Committee should be interested to know about it. Most Cornish people would prefer that the money should be spent on primary schools or some urgent need, but not on a new grandiose court house at Truro.
Furthermore, the figure does not take into account the provision of new judges' lodgings or a suitable alternative. I suspect that the whole scheme has not been thoroughly costed. In answer to my parliamentary question in December 1978 the Solicitor-General admitted to me that it was too soon to forecast the operating costs of a court at Truro. Yet there is already an adequate court house at Bodmin which it well lit, ventilated and heated, with a superb judges' lodging house.
If the Lord Chancellor's Department feels that the existing facilities at Bodmin are unsatisfactory, improvements could be carried out at a fraction of the capital cost that it would take to build the Truro complex. If the court is located at Truro, the cost of transporting defendants will also increase, since the distances from Exeter and Pucklechurch are greater. Presumably, that will involve longer hours for the escorts—at greater cost.
On the grounds of the cost involved, and because the case for a transfer to Truro from Bodmin has not been made out, I believe that the Lord Chancellor should be prepared to reconsider his earlier decision. I am supported in that view by four of the five hon. Members who represent the Duchy of Cornwall.

Four of six district councils in Cornwall are also of that opinion. One of the two remaining councils takes a neutral view.
The policy committee of the county council has asked its chief executive officer to prepare a report. The Cornish Gorsedd and Federation of Old Cornwall Societies are opposed to the transfer, as are Mebyom Kernow, the British Legal Association and numerous local parish councils and private individuals who have either written to the Bodmin town council or myself expressing their views.
We believe that the evidence collected almost 10 years ago by the Royal Commission could well be outdated, and that inadequate consultation took place in 1972. At that time, the circuit administrator for the Western circuit was given the task of sounding out the views of local authorities, interested organisations and public opinion. If the transfer were implemented the problem would remain of the utilisation of the existing courthouse at Bodmin and the shire house. It would be uneconomic to retain them for the use of the county and the magistrates' courts alone.
There is an additional dimension of confusion because land has already been earmarked in Bodmin for a new magistrates' court. There is the further irony that recently a combined Crown court and administrative centre has been built at Bodmin, designed expressly to serve the county. Presumably, that would be wasted if the Crown court was moved to Truro.
There has been a lack of co-ordination of finances and planning in reaching this decision. I hope that the Minister will persuade the Lord Chancellor to review his earlier decision and meet a delegation from Bodmin before any final decision is made.

1.14 a.m.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) for allowing me a few moments of his time, especially as I am to enter the alternative case.
Whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, Truro is the economic and commercial centre of the great county of Cornwall. It has the hospitals, the county hall and the registrar buildings. It has virtually all the commercial centres of the county. It has a railway station in the


city and even British Rail could not take a whole hour to get from Bodmin station, which is some distance from Bodmin, to Truro station, which is slap in the middle of that great city.
Most people live west of Truro. Certainly far more live west of Truro than live east of Bodmin—if that is the crux of the argument in this case. The number of people within 30 miles of the court would be substantially increased if it were moved to Truro.
The court at Bodmin is old and out of date. The hon. Member for Bodmin mentioned when it was built and that is an indication of the facilities that are available. Clearly a new court will be required some time and any sane person, given the choice, would decide to build it in Truro. I ask the Minister not to take too blandly the offerings of the hon. Member for Bodmin. There is a good case for the court to be moved to Truro and what we really want to know from the debate is when that will take place.

1.16 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) for setting out the case for retaining the High Court and Crown court centre in Cornwall at Bodmin and for his interesting historical description of the birth of this respected court. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) will have some sympathy for my position. A stranger crosses the Tamar—if I have not pronounced that right, I am in trouble—with some diffidence and he enters into a row among Cornishmen with considerable caution.
The Lord Chancellor is aware of the strong feelings expressed recently in favour of the retention of the court centre at Bodmin. The hon. Member for Bodmin has raised it more than once. He has written to the Lord Chancellor, put down questions and pursued his case vigorously. My noble and learned Friend is not unsympathetic towards local opinion, but I must make clear that it is his view—as it was the view of his predecessor Lord Hailsham—that if Cornwall is to continue to have the court facilities that it deserves, it is essential that a new complex is built in the foreseeable future. The

hon. Member for Truro will be delighted to know that the Lord Chancellor is convinced that the weight of argument is in favour of building that complex in Truro.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Bodmin will accept that this is not a clandestine, surreptitious or furtive proposal. It has not exactly been sprung by the Government on those affected by it. As long ago as 1969, the Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions made recommendations for court centres in South-West England—as it did for other parts of the country. The Royal Commission's proposal was that High Court judges should sit in both the High Court and the Crown court at Exeter and that, for the time being, High Court judges should continue to visit Bodmin to sit in the Crown court but not the High Court.
The Royal Commission thought that, in the longer term, Bodmin should be closed and replaced by a Crown court centre, still to be visited by High Court judges, at Truro. These recommendations were not implemented as such. Bodmin has retained the High Court as well as the Crown court during the seven years which have passed since the Courts Act 1971 came into force.
Nevertheless, in 1972, the then Lord Chancellor—the noble Lord Lord Hailsham—decided that interested parties in Cornwall should be consulted on the recommendation that, in the long run, Truro should become the High Court and Crown court centre for the county. Extensive consultation was carried out by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Approaches were made to the judiciary, the leader of the Western circuit, law societies in Cornwall and Devon, the chairmen of the appropriate benches of magistrates, the county council and the councils of Bodmin, Truro and Penzance, the high sheriff and under-sheriff, the appropriate officials of the Devon and Cornwall constabulary, the prison department of the Home Office and the Cornwall branch of the Magistrates' Association. The result was that the overwhelming majority of replies received were in favour of the move to Truro. However, in fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I must concede that the most substantial objector was the then Bodmin


corporation, which argued, not unexpectedly, for the retention of the present arrangements.
However, the Lord Chancellor's decision had to be taken in the light of the opinion of the county as a whole, and in October 1972 he accepted that the centre should be transferred to Truro when suitable accommodation could be built. This decision was announced in answer to a question in another place on 16 November 1972. In view of the subsequent lack of protest or comment in Cornwall, it was assumed that the decision was broadly acceptable. It is a little surprising to find that, when the Government take the first moves to implement the decision some six years later, there is a significant body of opinion against the move.
It is the Government's intention that High Court judges should continue to visit Cornwall to sit in both the High Court and the Crown court. It is the Government's duty to provide the right facilities for this purpose, as well as for county courts. The alternative is for judges, barristers and solicitors, witnesses and jurors, prisoners, prison officers and the staff of the courts themselves to soldier on in outdated buildings which are often subject to unsatisfactory sharing arrangements. In due course, if no new accommodation is provided, arrears of work will build up to unacceptable levels or the alternative solution of transferring work elsewhere will have to be adopted.
The Government cannot plan the future arrangements for the High Court, Crown court and county courts on a short-term, hand-to-mouth basis. Indeed, the reform of the courts brought about by the Courts Act 1971 was largely designed to enable Governments to think ahead and plan properly.
The hon. Member for Bodmin has suggested that either no such modernisation is required or, if it is, it could be achieved by adapation of the existing building at Bodmin at a cost far fess than the estimated £2·5 million which is earmarked for the proposed building at Truro. With great respect to the hon. Member and to the strongly and sincerely held views of his constituents, I am afraid that new accommodation will be required in the foreseeable future and that it is not possible, within the bounds of reasonable

expenditure, to achieve this by adaptation of the existing courthouse. I should like to explain the position in rather more detail.
It has been said that the existing two courtrooms at Bodmin are not fully used. This is true at the present time, there being some spare capacity. Nevertheless, it would be dangerous indeed to plan on the basis that this fairly minimal spare capacity will continue to exist. The statistical projections for the work load of the Crown court over the next 10 years suggest that, by perhaps 1987–88, the work load at Bodmin overall—that is, High Court, Crown court and county court—will be beyond the capacity of the two courtrooms.
It would be unwise not to plan some extension, but in any event courtroom capacity itself is not the main problem at present. The accommodation at Bodmin as a whole is very unsatisfactory by comparison with what is regarded as acceptable in modern terms. This is not to say that a fine building has not honourably served its purpose for a long time. The hon. Gentleman made clear that Bodmin is very proud of its court, and rightly so, but it is 150 years old and is deficient in a number of important ways. There is only one small consultation room, so that parties, counsel and solicitors have to manage as best they can in the public areas of the courthouse. There is little proper accommodation for judges sitting in the Crown court or for jurors or witnesses. Equally, the cell accommodation is poor, and complaints have been dealt with only by assurances that proper facilities for prison staff as well as for prisoners will be provided in the proposed new building. Finally—and this is an important point—the court offices are in a separate building some distance away. These are not proper facilities in this day and age.
I understand the hon. Member's desire that, if money is to be spent, it should be directed to extension of the existing building, but it is simply not true that the building at Bodmin could be adapted economically to provide an additional courtroom and the fairly extensive facilities for offices and court users that are clearly needed. The Property Services Agency has re-examined the position very recently. It has reached the conclusion that the courthouse at Bodmin would be


very difficult to extend or adapt. It is built of granite and is on an island site. There would appear to be little hope, therefore, of extending the building outwards.
Furthermore, the courthouse is a scheduled building. Experience shows that it is very difficult to predict, and even more difficult to contain, expenditure on major adaptations of historic buildings.
Consequently, any extension at Bodmin would have to be made more or less within the framework of the existing building. To provide the space that is required, and is planned at Truro, would mean adding two floors. The experts from the PSA see no practicable way in which this could be done. In addition, were Bodmin to be adapted, the Crown would have to acquire it in the first place—it belongs to the county council at the moment—at a cost which cannot be estimated at present and alternative accommodation would have to be found for a considerable period of time while building work was in operation. Although a precise estimate of cost is not possible, the Property Services Agency takes the view that overall expenditure would be comparable to that proposed for Truro.
The position is, therefore, that Cornwall cannot soldier on indefinitely with the existing facilities if arrears of work are not to get out of hand. Furthermore, what is needed cannot be achieved by adaptation of the courthouse at Bodmin. If a new court complex is to be provided, a decision must be taken—difficult though it is—as to where it should be. It would be idle to pretend that the Government, in taking a decision of this kind, can satisfy all interested parties. That has been amply demonstrated this evening. Nevertheless, it is the Government's view that the arguments weigh in favour of a move to Truro—a one-minute speech as opposed to a 15-minute speech—and that, all-in-all, Truro is better placed to serve the whole county in this respect.
Of course, the views of those who live in northern and eastern Cornwall must be respected as must the opinion of those who feel that the historic connection with Bodmin should be maintained. However, the majority of the work of the Crown court in Cornwall does originate from well to the south of Bodmin and, generally, from the parts of the county adjacent to Truro or south of it.
I am assured, although I am not an expert on the area, that the greater weight of the population is in that area. I see that the hon. Member for Truro nods. Opinion about accessibility of particular towns is necessarily very subjective, but Truro I am informed would seem to be more accessible to a greater proportion of the population of Cornwall than Bodmin. I do not want to go over the arguments—which the hon. Gentleman did not find convincing—in my noble Friend's letter, about the fact that Truro lies on the main railway line to Penzance. Nor do I think any good would be served by rehearsing the other six points. A balance has to be struck. In 1972, it was struck in favour of Truro after extensive local consultation and my noble Friend does not believe that the position has changed since then.
There is one final problem of some importance which concerns the organisation of the courts in Cornwall and which would be solved by a new building at Truro. Just as the facilities at Bodmin are inadequate and must be replaced, so the existing facilities for the county court at Truro, which is a good deal busier than the county court at Bodmin, are unsatisfactory. The court has to sit in the magistrates' court and its offices are some distance away from the courthouse. This is a serious inconvenience though the sharing arrangements with the magistrates are very amicable. The new court complex would combine all the facilities needed for the High Court, Crown court and Truro county court, including the district registry of the High Court which, again very inconveniently, currently has to serve the sittings of the High Court at Bodmin. The courthouse at Bodmin would continue to be used by the Bodmin county court and would, though I do not know if this would be necessary, be available for magistrates' sittings. Thus, the result would be that Cornwall would get good modern facilities to replace arrangements which are clearly unsatisfactory at present for both Bodmin and Truro.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend would be pleased to meet him and a delegation he wished to take, but it would be wrong and misleading to imply that my noble Friend would, of necessity, change his mind. The Government


hold to their decision that to move the High Court and Crown court centre from Bodmin to Truro is correct and in the long-term interests of better administration of justice in Cornwall. The complex

there should serve the whole county effectively for many years to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past One o'clock.